Despite own complaints about "chickification of the news," Limbaugh criticized Rather's "pure sexism" toward Couric
On the June 12 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh criticized as "pure sexism" recent statements by Dan Rather regarding the CBS Evening News, in which Rather said that CBS was "try[ing] to bring the Today show ethos to the Evening News and to dumb it down, tart it up in hopes of attracting a younger audience." After airing this portion of Rather's response, Limbaugh said, "Now, when I saw this last night -- I was talking about this -- I said this is -- that's sexism. Dan Blather [sic], this is pure sexism -- dumb it down and tart it up." However, in the past, Limbaugh himself has complained about the number of women working in journalism and their adverse effect on the news media.
During a June 11 interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough asked Rather about CBS' purported decision to "soften the news," to which Rather responded: "I want to make very clear that I have nothing against [Evening News anchor] Katie Couric at all. She's a very nice person, and I have a lot of friends at CBS News. However, it was clear at the time -- and I think it's become even clearer -- that the mistake was to try to bring the Today show ethos to the Evening News and to dumb it down, tart it up in hopes of attracting a younger audience."
On his May 8 broadcast, Limbaugh discussed "the fact that newsrooms -- local and national newsrooms in television -- have been overrun with women" and lamented this so-called " 'chickification' of the news":
LIMBAUGH: [T]here's no denying that women have become more prevalent in editor-producer positions. And it -- we've call it the "chickification" of the news here. And one of the things that results from the chickification of the news is we have to have dialogue. We just have to have dialogue. We're going to have -- we're going to have dialogue. To hell with whether anything being discussed is properly built, is true, or any of this. And it's all about feeling good about ourselves. By the way, one -- and yes, we have to have closure after the dialogue. We must have closure.
During the same broadcast, Limbaugh went on to complain about the "feminization of America," describing men as having "linguini spines" and women as "pretty much taking over." Limbaugh then returned to women's effect on the news media:
LIMBAUGH: The chickification of the news is nothing more than you admit to me that men and women are different. Women look at things different. They have different interests, and they now have more positions of prominence in the news business than they used to have.
On the June 4 broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh mocked an article by Associated Press staff writer David Bauder that addressed Couric's tenure as Evening News anchor. In the article, Bauder reported that Linda Mason, the standards chief for CBS' news division, had "speculated" that Couric's ratings have languished because "a tradition-bound audience was reluctant to get the day's news from a woman." Referring to the article, Limbaugh said:
LIMBAUGH: Do you know why Katie's ratings are the lowest that CBS has ever had in the evening? Do you know why? No, no. Nothing to do with her. It's not that she's not good at it. Well, it's something to do with her, but it's something she can't control. It's sexism, folks. It's pure bigotry. You people in the audience just will not watch a woman do the news. You just won't do it. It's your fault! That's the -- I mean, I could read the whole story to you here, but that pretty much sums it up. You people are a bunch of bigots. You'd rather watch a bunch of doddering old men, saliva dripping down the corners of their mouths than you would watch a babe or a woman do the news.
And, of course, what's absurd about this is that the chickification of the news in this country from local to national newsrooms and networks has been accomplished. They're all over the place. They're producing. They're reporting. They're anchoring. We've got anchorettes. We've got info babes. They're all over cable news. In fact, most of them are blonde. Where does this supply come from? There's an endless supply of them out there. One blonde goes, another blonde comes in. They're all over the place out there, and it hasn't hurt the cable network people at all in terms of the news.
From the June 11 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: You know, Dan, the thing that Chris Licht [executive producer of MSNBC's Scarborough Country] was talking about -- maybe you read in the Times, or I don't know where you read it -- but there was, seemed to me, this terrible miscalculation by Rome Hartman and a couple of CBS News execs that they were going to soften up the news, and that way they could expand their viewership. Yeah, I would think that if I'm sitting down at 6:30 to get the news, to see what's happened in the day, I don't want fluff stories. Do you think that's one of the problems that Katie Couric's had coming in -- that maybe they tried to re-brand the Evening News in a way that Americans just didn't want to accept?
RATHER: Well, I totally agree with you, Joe. That -- I want to make very clear that I have nothing against Katie Couric at all. She's a very nice person, and I have a lot of friends at CBS News. However, it was clear at the time -- and I think it's become even clearer -- that the mistake was to try to bring the Today show ethos to the Evening News and to dumb it down, tart it up in hopes of attracting a younger audience. And I just don't think people at 6:30 or 7 o'clock at night, or even 5:30 in the Central Time Zone or 6 o'clock when it's seen, that that's what they want. This is the continuation of a trend that we've talked about before, Joe and Mika [Brzezinski] and John [Ridley], and that is the combination of what I call the corporatizing of the news, has led to the trivializing the news.
From the May 8 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: And finally, before we go to break, from the BBC -- well, actually this is Daily Mail in the U.K. The BBC has been ruined by women producing terrible programs, according to Sir Patrick Moore. He's an astronomer. He's 84. He said the corporation needed to revert to the golden days when the news was presented by men with impeccable English.
We've talked about on this program before the subject of the fact that newsrooms -- local and national newsrooms in television -- have been overrun with women. And here's what he says. "He was asked if television had got better or worse. He says, 'Much worse. The trouble is the BBC is now run by women, and it shows -- soap operas, cooking, quizzes, kitchen-sink plays. You wouldn't have had that in the golden days.' Asked about female newsreaders, he said, 'There was one day in 2005 when BBC News went on strike. Then we had the headlines read by a man talking the Queen's English, reading the news impeccably. Oh, for the good old days.' "
That's a generational thing going on here, obviously, the man is 84 years old. And, you know, everybody that age looks back and thinks that the golden age was the era in which they lived. He may have a point here, but there's no denying that women have become more prevalent in editor-producer positions. And it -- we've call it the "chickification" of the news here. And one of the things that results from the chickification of the news is we have to have dialogue. We just have to have dialogue. We're going to have -- we're going to have dialogue. To hell with whether anything being discussed is properly built, is true, or any of this. And it's all about feeling good about ourselves. By the way, one -- and yes, we have to have closure after the dialogue. We must have closure.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: OK. What do I mean by the feminization of America?
CALLER: Right.
LIMBAUGH: What I mean by the feminization of America is that feminist doctrine of the modern era, which has its roots in the late '60s and early '70s, has cowed men. Men now have linguini spines, and women and the way they think and do things, pretty much taking over, or is making inroads in a lot places, particularly in education, all the way up to higher education.
CALLER: OK. Well, and it --
LIMBAUGH: Lookit. There -- would you agree with me that men and women are different?
CALLER: Absolutely.
LIMBAUGH: All right. Well, that's all -- women are what they are and who they are, and men used to be who they are --or were. But, you know, men [sigh] -- trapped. I mean, men -- they'll do anything to get where they want to go. The promised land, if you know what I mean. So, there's been this -- there has [chuckling] --
CALLER: [laughing]
LIMBAUGH: There's just been a general decline of masculine culture, masculinity, and when it shows up, it's lampooned and made fun of, and it's called brute force and so forth. The chickification of the news is nothing more than you admit to me that men and women are different. Women look at things different. They have different interests, and they now have more positions of prominence in the news business than they used to have.
CALLER: So, I guess what I'm trying to say, though, is that like -- to de -- emasculate a man isn't the same as feminizing him. Like, I don't think that the lack of masculinity is femininity. So, it's -- to me, like, when you're saying that, you're kind of saying, like -- to be a woman is to be linguini-spined.
LIMBAUGH: To be a woman is to be -- what?
CALLER: Linguini-spined. When you say that feminization --
LIMBAUGH: No! No, no, no, no. Men are linguini-spined when they become like women, but women are not linguini -- this -- you're opening a big can of worms here, because I actually think that in many cases, women have stronger constitutions than men, and this proves it.
CALLER: [laughing] What proves it? Me?
LIMBAUGH: No, no, no. Not you. The fact that men are capitulating all over the place.
From the June 12 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: You've got to hear these next two sound bites, folks. They are of Dan Blather [sic], formerly of the CBS Evening News. Yesterday, he was on MSNBC with Joe Scarborough, who was working in the morning. And Scarborough said there was this terrible miscalculation by Rome Hartman -- a producer over at CBS Evening News. And a couple CBS news execs said they were going to soften up the news, and that way they could expand their viewership, get more women in there. Do you think that's one of the problems Katie Couric's had coming in, that maybe they tried to re-brand the evening news in a way that Americans just don't want to accept?
[begin audio clip]
RATHER: Well, I totally agree with you, Joe. That -- I want to make very clear that I have nothing against Katie Couric at all. She's a very nice person, and I have a lot of friends at CBS News. However, it was clear at the time -- and I think it's become even clearer -- that the mistake was to try to bring the Today show ethos to the Evening News and to dumb it down, tart it up, in hopes of attracting a younger audience.
[end audio clip]
LIMBAUGH: Yeah, this is a clever technique, folks. I myself have used this technique. I love Katie Couric! Oh, I love CBS -- I've got friends at CBS News. A lot of respect for what goes on over there. And then you slam them. Tarting up the news. Dumbing it down and tarting up the news. The Today show ethos.
Now, when I saw this last night -- I was talking about this -- I said this is -- that's sexism. Dan Blather [sic], this is pure sexism -- dumb it down and tart it up. So we went back today. Here's a montage of Dan Rather on the air on election night November 2000. This is a montage of Dan Rather's coverage. And let's listen to dumbing it down and tarting it up.
From the June 4 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: All right, perhaps the funniest news story out there today comes from our old buddy David Bauder at the Associated Press. And it explores the reasons why Katie Couric's ratings are in the toilet.
By the way, still no response from CBS News to my magnanimous offer to sit for an interview on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric to jump-start those ratings. Still no response. Offer stands. Don't expect to hear back from them.
Do you know why Katie's ratings are the lowest that CBS has ever had in the evening? Do you know why? No, no. Nothing to do with her. It's not that she's not good at it. Well, it's something to do with her, but it's something she can't control. It's sexism, folks. It's pure bigotry. You people in the audience just will not watch a woman do the news. You just won't do it. It's your fault! That's the -- I mean, I could read the whole story to you here, but that pretty much sums it up. You people are a bunch of bigots. You'd rather watch a bunch of doddering old men, saliva dripping down the corners of their mouths than you would watch a babe or a woman do the news.
And, of course, what's absurd about this is that the chickification of the news in this country from local to national newsrooms and networks has been accomplished. They're all over the place. They're producing. They're reporting. They're anchoring. We've got anchorettes. We've got info babes. They're all over cable news. In fact, most of them are blonde. Where does this supply come from? There's an endless supply of them out there. One blonde goes, another blonde comes in. They're all over the place out there, and it hasn't hurt the cable network people at all in terms of the news.
So Limbaugh's a feminazi?
CLARIFICATION:
This is an example of "Miss Information".
Thank you.
I just got on this site and it is hilarious to read all you libs, wasting your time whining and moaning that oh my God, they've actually allowed people with conservative viewpoints out in the media.
if there so stupid and you people are the pinnacle of all knowledge, why does this site exist? what are you all afraid of
Limbaugh is apparently concerned that the news is in danger of becoming sensationalist,what with this tawdry influx of "chicks".
The next thing you know,they'll let some fat bigot shoot his yap off about stuff he knows absolutely nothing about.
Just imagine THAT.
And imagine if they hire a druggie. IMAGINE THAT!
No offense meant, Loislap, but would it be any less bad if it was a THIN bigot anchoring the news?
Regardless of Rush who in my opinion is irrelevant to this topic, Dan Rather is way off line. He is a disgusting person who hates women.
Anything to back that up with ? A link perhaps, or are you just a Moonves shill ?
What are you, a Rather shill?
Funny how posters here gripe all day long about Fox's infobabes but don't see that as degrading women. Rather degrades Katie yet MMFA tries to say "Well, Rush does it to." How pathetic.
hand it to leather to dumb it down a notch further...calling what he said sexist is a helluva stretch...I asked for examples, which you don't have either
does your mother know you are up this late on the internet young man ?
Why pro Rather? Do you hate Katie Couric that much?
It's not a matter of hating Couric. It's a matter of recognizing her professional limitations. Couric is not a serious journalist. She is simply a television personality & a clear lightweight when it comes to the issues that a true journalist MUST be capable of dealing with. She represents a cynical attempt by CBS to abandon their remarkable heritage of true journalism in favor of the intellectually vapid, personality-driven, ratings-garnering approach of the Today Show... News Lite, if you will.
This is not about gender.
It's about competence.
MESCAL:
Bingo.
I agree. Couric is a lightweight. People aren't stupid. They knew she was a lightweight going in. Why sould they watch her? No reason to. It's not her fault. She just isn't the right person for that chair. Another women with better credibility would be fine. That said, CBS has been last in the ratings for years.
Couric has plenty of background to handle the job. What is the matter, throw affirmative action out the window and belittle a perfectly qualified female for the position? You are sounding like bigots. Tsk. Tsk.
Katie Couric is the anchor of The CBS Evening News. She previously was the host of the NBC morning program The Today Show from 1991 through 2006. Couric worked for CNN and ABC early in her career, also reporting in Miami and Washington, D.C. She joined NBC News in 1989 and the Today show in 1990, becoming permanent co-anchor in 1991. With her perky attitude and no-holds-barred interviewing style, Couric boosted the show's sagging ratings and became one of morning TV's most popular personalities. Her husband, Jay Monahan, died in 1998 of colon cancer, and in 1999 Couric co-founded a non-profit organization for cancer research and education. In 2001 Couric signed a new contract (worth a reported $65 million) to remain with The Today Show through 2006. She announced to Today Show viewers on 5 April 2006 that she would leave the show at the end of May to become the anchor of The CBS Evening News. Couric made her debut on the evening news broadcast on 5 September 2006.
If anyone one else is wondering why Leather's post was unusually lucid, it is because he swiped it from here:
http://www.answers.com/topic/katie-couric
I think it was an innocent mistake, but if you are going to cut and paste in the future, leave a reference or link of some kind. When you don't do that, it looks like you are trying to take credit for someone else's work.
Grammar Nazi out.
Couric certainly has a background in news and the so-called quality background of Dan Rather turned into the biggest scandal in CBS history. Couric worked for CNN, ABC and NBC news. I'd say you just don't think a woman can handle an anchor "man" job.
LEATHER:
I have to agree. On the topic of "HYPOCRICY", there is no rightwing offense here.
Dan Rather, as a human being, and if you believe the rightwing propaganda, also as a raging Liberal ... would be in favor of equal treatment for women, equality in the workplace, and the avoidance of sexual stereotyping and misogyny.
Limbaugh would not be a hypocrite in this instance. He openly has great problems with women, cannot find one to spend time with him. He applies the "NAZI" label to politically active women seeking redress of discrimination. He is verbally a bitter, lonely, dysfunctional man who cannot get a date, and is resentful of the entire female gender as a result. Personally repulsive to women, he misses no opportunity to belittle and ridicule the "fairer sex" (for that matter, he is openly hostile to the concept of "fair"). His record is long and sad.
So, BAD ON Rather, and Limbaugh ... consistent and true to his "ideals".
Every time I think Leatherhelmet has reached the bottom of the barrel, he starts drilling holes.....
Moonves is a moron but has nothing to do with sexism . Stop being a Rather shill.
You still got nothing, eh? No links, no quotes, nada. Typical.
HE CALLED COURIC A TART.
Oh Noes! Limbaugh can't be on the same side as Rather! Now he must pretend he was on the other side the whole time.
Men now have linguini spines? Not like in the '60's and '70's when men were men.
But some men were never able to reach their full potential for various reasons, like a pilonidal cyst. These men now make a living pointing out the perceived weaknesses in other men.
When men were men and sheep were nervous.
Sorry, it had to be said. :D
That statement, I believe came from my home state. Thanks,now I gotta get back to caring for my dental floss bushes.
Hi Ho Zircon! Away!
Do you have a pigmy pony?
Limbaugh probably longs for the days when men were men and he was arrested in the company of a male prostitute in Pittsburgh, under his pseudonym "Jeff Christie".
The evening new has always been anchored by the "good old boys". The standard used to rate success requires something that neither Katie nor Barbara Walters have, a d**k. CBS hired Katie not because she was a hard hitting journalist but she was very popular and instrumental in the rise of The Today's show rating.
And for Rush, heard that phrase "pot calling the kettle black?" Calling rather for sexism but it's OK for him to use the phrase "chickification".
Dan is right, news in general is dying
A better target would be the so called new media as they are far more dangerous than lil Kate
You do hate Katie
Jlyons, I don't hate Katie but I think she failed in her debut as the evening anchor. Allowing CBS to print touched up pictures and then allowing that to get out in MSM was a mistake. She could have forgotten about the pictures and approached her job without the "is she pretty or not". CBS along with Katie allowed the discussion on her ability as an anchor to fall into the "pretty girl" category which made her seem like the "pretty girl instead of an evening news anchor.
Dan Rather on the other hand has been a gifted journalist, not perfect and who is, but gifted journalist never the less.
I agree, the day Dan Rather left CBS News (or was pushed out) was a bad day for American MSM that since has never recovered. I also do not hate Katie Couric but facts are she has failed in her role and no one takes her seriously. As for Rush, I do not take that drug addicted hater seriously for a second, he should look at himself before attacking Dan Rather.
Good job, stooge. Present no evidence, no quotes, and no facts. Just put 'em on the defensive. Works for the right-wing noise machine.
EDENSCAPE:
You make a great point. Dan Rather is not so much criticizing Couric as a "serious journalist" -- which would not be a topic had CBS not given her the premier job in their organization CALLING for serious journalism -- but instead is lamenting the atrophy of the entire concept of "serious journalism."
The Rightwing has been making a serious challenge to "the free PRESS" in the last couple of decades, seeing the importance of "the Media" as propaganda opportunities that are on "the market" and so can be purchased. Once "the free PRESS" is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rightwing interests, then "the news" is whatever the owners SAY it is.
So, we no longer get "TRUTH", we get entertainment. We no longer get "FACTS", we get spin. We no longer get "SERIOUS NEWS", we are bombarded with Paris Hilton and other blondes-in-distress. We no longer get "policy analysis", we get simplistic slogans like "if you don't support the President's policy, you are in league with the terrorists".
We no longer get reporters who have built reputations of integrity and worked their way up into anchor positions, we get Glenn Beck. We get PROPAGANDA, and a GOP government that does everything in its power to remove obstacles to the monied/rightwing takeover of all sources of "a free PRESS" ... with the DESTRUCTION of "free" as the goal.
The internet is the lone thorn in the side of this Propaganda Takeover plot, because the internet cannot be BOUGHT (in whole). This is why Rightwing pundits spend so much time telling us how IRRELEVANT websites are, and how information in online political sites are "radical leftwing SMEARS". The TRUTH has a liberal bias, so what cannot be BOUGHT, must be destroyed.
I am sooo glad that someone of Dan Rather's stature (the one he deserves, not the one created by the MSM) has publicly lambasted CBS for their schit-for-brains decision(s).
Couric was a decent reporter once upon a time, but moriningshowitis is probably a hard malady to shake.
She sure hasn't.
I thought Rather was legitimate and Limbaugh was a windbag. Guess it's okay for Rather to behave like a windbag since nobody cares. This is that old tactic about attacking the accuser since you can't refute what they say. Nice trick.
The problem with news today is not the gender of who reports it. The poison that plagues most of our media today is the same poison that plagues our elected leaders: MONEY.
Before the days of ratings, revenue and obscene profits, journalism was a service to the public.
Frontline has brilliantly documented the story of this transformation and I highly recommend it.
That's right. Network journalism used to be fact-filled and informative. But when the corporate bean-counters started demanding that the News Divisions turn a profit, they started producing the pap we see today.
Edward R Murrow must be spinning in his grave....
I'm sorry, but using the word "tart" in this context is pretty gendered, I think it's fair to say that Rather is being sexist.
But that hardly excuses Limbaugh. Both of them can be sexist at the same time y'know.
Of course, only one of them has practically made a career out of it.
"I'm sorry, but using the word 'tart' in this context is pretty gendered, I think it's fair to say that Rather is being sexist."
You might think it's fair to say that, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily the case.
Did you notice that he said (to) tart it up? [implied parallel construction with "to dumb it down"--and directly referring to The Evening News, not the newscaster] That is, he used the suspect word as a *verb*.
c.f. http://www.bartleby.com/61/19/T0051900.html
There's a fair chance Dan knows something about the English language. But Rush knows...?
Thats a good point except that used in THIS context the connection with Couric is inescapable. While he might be technically correct it still looks like an attempt at a pun.
You make a fair point. Considering the context, perhaps Rather should have used a different expression that was not so open to misinterpretation. However, I believe it's unfair to conclude that it was an intended pun and indicative of sexism by Rather.
"Chickification" on the other hand...that's clearly sexist.
Giving it further consideration, you are probably right. I mean Dan doesnt have a history of sexist comments. Perhaps it is unfair.
"Giving it further consideration, you are probably right. I mean Dan doesnt have a history of sexist comments. Perhaps it is unfair."
Solon, It could be worth reading what Dan has to say about matters...
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061407F.shtml
I agree. He had a point. I also don't think Couric had the weight of experience to be an anchor, she could have shown me she could rise to the occasion but hasnt. That said I dont see how Rathers characterization here can be defended. It smacks of sexist stereotyping. He should have stopped at attacking the content instead of meandering into the tart zone.
Well, Limabaugh and Rather are actually both right. The bevy of blonds and only young, good looking women has tarted up the news. But the lack of substance of both men and women in what is being reported is what has done the most damage.
John Roberts is the biggest empty headed himbo in news, so he's too pretty with no substance as well. They need to find people who understand what they are actually reporting.
The abject stupidy of CBS is insane.
Limbaugh has openly said he would offer to have Katie give him a live interview as long as it wasn't edited to help her ratings.
Limbaugh gets 22 Million unique listeners a week. That's 5 times that of CBS evening news.
She has yet to answer.
If she loses, it is all her fault because she is an idiot.
And an interview with Lardball will help her, uh... win?
OK then.
Lardball and his "unique" listeners are the remedy for Katie's low ratings, as if this worthless drug addict would ever extend any kind of olive branch to anyone even if he was able.
Pete
I generally respect your postings here, but I have to take slight issue with you on this one. Let me ask you, if Rush were some sort of Adonis, would his arguments be any less false. Would a svelt, hard-muscled frame make him a figure that would then command your respect?
Obviously not.
It is his lying, manipulative, smearing, nasty, dishonest, falsely patriotic, & sociopathic WORDS that should make him a creature worthy of our ridicule. If he looked EXACTLY as he does today... but demonstrated himself to be empathic, caring, honest, & a genuinely stand-up guy, we would all be extolling his virtues. His weight would be considered irrelevant.
So, rather than making unkind remarks about overweight people, let's limit our criticisms of Rush to his appalling lack of character, alright?
By the way: I readily concede that I'm just as likely to throw a kidney punch as the next guy, so I can hardly hold myself up as an example of moral superiority. Rush wouldn't have to be on fire for me to be willing to piss on him. He's the right enemy... it's just the wrong cudgel that's being swung.
And I respect and understand you for taking issue, Mescal.
If he were an "Adonis", no, I wouldn't respect him any more than I do now, I simply wouldn't call him "Lardball" because the name wouldn't be fitting.
But in this day and age, I guess political correctness dictates that when you ridicule one overweight person, you're really ridiculing all overweight people, despite the fact that being overweight can be due to many different causes, one of them being personal choice.
As for Rush, I think he's fat because he chooses to stuff his face at every meal and remain sedentary, and I base this on his past ability to slim down. I could be wrong, maybe his weight is a genuine struggle for him, in which case calling him "Lardball" would be all the more inappropriate.
Anyway, I'm really reaching to excuse my labeling of him when I shouldn't be. Let me know how I can make nice with anyone out there who has been personally offended by my frequent use of "Lardball" to describe this horrible abomination of a person. If never using it again will suffice, then consider it done. Hold me to it.
Pete
Your response was extremely gracious. I'm not really arguing for gentility when replying to a scuzzbucket like Rush. I just want to see us nail the bastard right between the eyes, while avoiding hitting those who don't deserve it.
The hell of it is, the thoughtfulness of your reply now puts the rest of us... & in particular ME... under pressure to live up to the standard that you have now presented to us. Damn!
Talk about getting hoisted on your own petard.
22 million unique listeners a week.
With less than a hundred functional brain cells among them....
Thanx Darkmass. I was feeling like I was the only one who notced that.
That tarting up of the news studio and somehow being populated with bright shiny people only. Image trumps substance was the message I was getting. I didn't feel like working hard enough to pick out the useful news from the clutter. So somewhere in the 70's I just stopped watching. The engrame endures, big surprise.
Aye, it all went down hill with the "blow-dried" anchor set, Rather included. I've see him shill for plenty of war crimes, just like all the rest. There is no real news on US tv...unless you get Free Speech TV and watch Democracy Now or INN, but that's not on the cable channels.
Come on folks, he's just parodying himself.
22 million listeners my ass. Talker magazine estimates his audience at 14.5 mil tops. And due to overlap, that number is likely inflated 2 to 10 times. My guess is 7 times. Besides, the only one who's claiming 22 mil, is the magic bimbo himself. And we all know how reliable that info is.
I've heard Rush rant about how women are biologically unable to work, so they should stay at home. Can't get any more sexist than that. Fortunately for Rush, his listeners have amazingly short memories, or Rush has a narcotic effect on his listeners.
Maybe that's why they call it the boob tube?
I thought the right hated both Couric and Rather? It must be getting harder for them to decide who to attack.
It is ironic that Limblob laments the oversaturation of network TV with blond women of no apparent journalistic quality when it is none other than FAUX news that started this whole trend in the first place. The other cable networks, no liberals themselves, have followed suit, and now the big three networks are doing the same.
Limbaugh is so stupid that he is unknowingly criticized a right-wing news channel for the current state of affairs he despises.
Limblob, I like that. That's good. Pretty much describes him. It. Whatever.