Author of NY Times Limbaugh profile: "I'm a little bit defensive because I think that the liberal media takes such an unfair view of him"
SUMMARY: In an interview on WNYC's On the Media regarding his profile of Rush Limbaugh for The New York Times Magazine, Zev Chafets asserted: "I'm not an apologist for Rush Limbaugh, but I'm a little bit defensive because I think that the liberal media takes such an unfair view of him."
In a July 4 interview preceding the publication of his profile of radio host Rush Limbaugh, New York Times Magazine contributor Zev Chafets asserted on WNYC's On the Media: "I'm not an apologist for Rush Limbaugh, but I'm a little bit defensive because I think that the liberal media takes such an unfair view of him." During the interview, however, Chafets offered no support for his assertion that "the liberal media takes such an unfair view of him."
In the interview, host Bob Garfield said:
GARFIELD: Your piece on Limbaugh was very generous, I would say even flattering. You seem to give him a pass for his excesses. And when I'm talking about excesses, I'm talking about ad hominem attacks, truly mean-spirited stuff that goes way beyond satire and into the politics of vilification, and also playing fast and loose with the truth, seizing on some news item and grossly misrepresenting it and creating a lot of hubbub, using as the kernel of his satire something that is just fundamentally untrue.
Chafets replied:
CHAFETS: Well, do you have an example of that? I'm not an apologist for Rush Limbaugh, but I'm a little bit defensive because I think that the liberal media takes such an unfair view of him.
I hear people being vilified on the radio on all sorts of radio stations by all sorts of people all day long. And Limbaugh is not worse than many of the ones I hear, even on NPR. He just has a different point of view.
In fact, Media Matters for America has documented numerous examples in which, as Garfield noted, Limbaugh "play[ed] fast and loose with the truth."
From the July 4 edition of WNYC's On the Media:
GARFIELD: In less than a month, Rush Limbaugh will celebrate his 20th year hosting The Rush Limbaugh Show. Rush is easily the most successful radio broadcaster, with an audience of at least 14 million people a week. He just signed a $400-million, eight-year re-up of his contract, making as much as all of the nightly news anchors combined.
His political clout remains strong, fresh off of Operation Chaos, in which he convinced Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton in order to prolong the bruising Democratic nomination fight. And he hangs out with Supreme Court justices.
But 14 years after Limbaugh was credited with ushering in the Republican revolution and the Contract with America, is he still capable of swaying a presidential election? Zev Chafets has written about Limbaugh for this weekend's New York Times Magazine, and he joins us now. Zev, welcome to OTM.
CHAFETS: Thank you. Nice to be with you.
GARFIELD: OK, first question. You are [laughs] -- you are representing The New York Times, the apotheosis of the Eastern liberal media elite. How the hell did you get in to see Rush Limbaugh?
CHAFETS: [laughs] I asked nicely and persistently.
GARFIELD: Limbaugh did get his back up with you when you persistently questioned him about his clout. Is it your belief that, in fact, he has begun to lose impact, maybe to the likes of Sean Hannity or Michael Savage or any of the right-wing screamers?
CHAFETS: I talked to Michael Harrison, who's the publisher of Talkers Magazine, which is the industry magazine, and he told me that Limbaugh retains his position. He described him as something like a combination of Elvis and the Beatles, as far as AM talk radio is concerned.
Jay Nordlinger, who is the managing editor of the National Review, told me that when he was hiring guys out of college for the National Review, they would come in and say that they became conservatives by listening to Rush Limbaugh.
So I think that maybe his impact is less across the spectrum than it is across generations, that there -- he's been on for 20 years. There are already people who see him as sort of the inspiration for their conservative views and their children's conservative views.
GARFIELD: Now, I want to come to the McCain issue, because in order to support McCain in the upcoming election, he will have to go after Obama.
CHAFETS: Right.
GARFIELD: And he has already complained on the air of how difficult it is to go after Obama lest he be tarred with the R word.
CHAFETS: Right.
GARFIELD: And he's clearly concerned about this, but he's also forged a strategy. Can you tell me what that is?
CHAFETS: He appointed his call screener, a guy whose name is James Golden and he calls Bo Snerdley, who's an African-American, to be the official Obama criticizer. And, of course, this is done as a way of --
GARFIELD: Laundering?
CHAFETS: No, no, no, no, no. He's laughing at the media's sensitivities. You know, I asked him specifically. I said, "Are you going to have a problem with an African-American candidate?" And he said, "No. You know, Obama is a liberal, and I'll criticize him as a liberal," which is what he does.
GARFIELD: Your piece on Limbaugh was very generous, I would say even flattering. You seem to give him a pass for his excesses. And when I'm talking about excesses, I'm talking about ad hominem attacks, truly mean-spirited stuff that goes way beyond satire and into the politics of vilification, and also playing fast and loose with the truth, seizing on some news item and grossly misrepresenting it and creating a lot of hubbub, using as the kernel of his satire something that is just fundamentally untrue.
CHAFETS: Well, do you have an example of that? I'm not an apologist for Rush Limbaugh, but I'm a little bit defensive because I think that the liberal media takes such an unfair view of him.
I hear people being vilified on the radio on all sorts of radio stations by all sorts of people all day long. And Limbaugh is not worse than many of the ones I hear, even on NPR. He just has a different point of view.
GARFIELD: The NAACP should have a riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies?
CHAFETS: Not my sense of humor, but it's not a lie.
GARFIELD: Did Limbaugh not say that Abu Ghraib was no worse than a Skull and Bones initiation?
CHAFETS: Yeah, he did. It's his opinion.
GARFIELD: Yeah. Did he not deny that genocide was committed against the American Indian and state that the population is higher now than it was before Christopher Columbus -- of Native Americans?
CHAFETS: I don't know. I didn't ask him that, either. I don't know what the population was before Christopher Columbus.
GARFIELD: Yeah, it was about 15 million and, you know, by the 19th century, it was 250,000. I mean, that's what -- that's the numbers.
OK, now I know you don't want to be an apologist for Rush Limbaugh or his spokesman.
CHAFETS: Right.
GARFIELD: But do you not think that he is answerable for things that are, at minimum, offensive and obnoxious and mean-spirited that he's -- he has said on the air?
CHAFETS: Yeah, you know, I do think that. And I think he's answerable to the public. And I think that for people who find him more obnoxious and more mean-spirited than other people that they prefer to listen to, then they should answer him by turning him off.
I wouldn't say that I see Limbaugh as an unmixed, you know, blessing, but I do think that it's good for the American media climate to have at least one very strong conservative Republican voice that is heard, you know, across the country. There's more than one today, but they're all there only because Limbaugh was the first.
GARFIELD: Well, Zev, I appreciate your time.
CHAFETS: Hey, you're very welcome.
GARFIELD: Zev Chafets wrote about the 20th Limbaugh-versary for The New York Times Magazine.
What a load of crap. Who on NPR is the least bit like PigBoy?
Is Chafets angling for a job at FOX "News", or what?
Boy, Rush sure gets under the libs' skin.
He makes a lot of money.
You should just ignore him.
There, saved some people some work.
You know, all funniness aside, this really is a big problem that the extreme right-wing has. The Bush administration has even said they don't believe in objective reality, they believe in moral truth. They didn't trust the State department in the run up to the war because they were part of the "reality-based community."
I really wish I was making this up.
If your point were true, why would Eric Boehlert even ask in his piece on this interview "Does every Limbaugh profile need to be a hit piece?". In the view of the liberal media, every piece on Rush that does not attack him is out of line. The liberal media, and most here do nothing but attack Rush, and call him names. There is also great sport made of those who listen to him. If he is a bad as you all say, then explain the 400 million dollar contract. If the progressive agenda is so popular then why does Air America struggle to stay on the air and pay their "talent".
So attack all you want and call all the names you want. The amount of listerners rush has, as well as the money he is being paid points to a gap in the liberal progressive agenda, even if those here choose to ignore or deny it.
If he is a bad as you all say, then explain the 400 million dollar contract. POV
I don't know if this will ever penetrate the insecure groupthink mindset that runs conservatism, but I'll try once again; Popularity doesn't necessarily equal quality.Neither does high price.
What will never penetrate the hysterical groupthink among Rush-fearing liberals is the fact that most of his schtick is satire. It's political entertainment. It's caricature. It's ultra partisan schmoozy anti-liberal needling daytime talk radio. It's poking fun and getting under the skin of the left through exaggeration; smooth talking, cigar puffing, condescending and swaggering invective meant to drive liberals and those he eviscerates crazy.
His is not a quality driven, fact based enterprise focused on educating and informing anyone with opinions and NPR-type "all things considered". That is not what he does, anyone that takes more seriously than they should are just fodder for more of his satirical slurs.
Many on the left can't seem to get this, so they take him to task for his outrageousness and his twisted distortions of facts, endlessly. Even Olbermann gets him, someday many of you may too.
"Comedian Rush Limbaugh"
Btw, why don't you start serving lemonade to all those who stand behind you in the Limbaugh clueless line, since you are at the very front.
But I am always told that his WTIPW awards are satire too.
No surprise you are #2 in line, you are in charge of passing out the cookies.
Yeah, and it's foolish to respond to Rush's racism and lies, unless you're Olbermann, because he "gets it."
OK, Tommy, here's Rush's FIRST racist comment from early in his broadcast career in 1972, from the archives of F.A.I.R. http://www.fair.org
Rush said to a black caller, "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."
You defend that comment, Tommy?
Yeah, that kind of "satire" is very funny at the local white supremacist chapters.
Word is that Rush's happy Negro thinks it's funny. The National Association of Black Journalists http://www.nabj.org will be certain to give Rush's plantation Negro, er, I mean his assistant, a much deserved Thumbs Down Award for rubber stamping Rush's racism and white supremacy.
But I am always told that his WTIPW awards are satire too.
The Worst Toupee in Puyallup, Washington segment is meant to be light-hearted.
"But I am always told that his WTIPW awards are satire too."--tommy
That may be true, but you always reject that characterization as well. Why are you suggesting it is true now? It looks like you are trying to have it both ways here, tommy.
But I am always told that his WTIPW awards are satire too.
Yes, but what you are failing miserably to grasp here, is that just becasue it's satire, doesn't mean that the satirist desn't actually believe it. He does. That's WHY he does it! Olbermann believes very strongly in what he does and says (including the WPITW, although that's obviously a slight exageration) and so does Rush. Once you lot actually get a real sense of humor, and the requisite wit to actually be FUNNY, you'll learn that HUMOR should be taken VERY SERIOUSLY!
It's one of those nuance things. You'll get it someday.
We all know that you have a problem with concrete thinking impairing your comprehension, but now you're just being downright stupid. When Olbermann calls Limbaugh a comedian, he is employing a linguistic device known to those capable of abstract thought as sarcasm. Olbermann isn't using the "comedian" tag to excuse Limbaugh's lies and hate speech in the way that you do. So don't pretend that Olbermann is somehow in agreement with your "it's all a joke" defense of Limbaugh.
It's interesting that Chafets's defenses of specific Limbaugh statements perfectly echoes all of your standard lines. I wonder if you're in agreement with these answers:
"GARFIELD: The NAACP should have a riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies?
CHAFETS: Not my sense of humor, but it's not a lie.
GARFIELD: Did Limbaugh not say that Abu Ghraib was no worse than a Skull and Bones initiation?
CHAFETS: Yeah, he did. It's his opinion.
GARFIELD: Yeah. Did he not deny that genocide was committed against the American Indian and state that the population is higher now than it was before Christopher Columbus -- of Native Americans?
CHAFETS: I don't know. I didn't ask him that, either. I don't know what the population was before Christopher Columbus.
GARFIELD: Yeah, it was about 15 million and, you know, by the 19th century, it was 250,000."You still don't get it, and now you call me stupid. Am I excusing Limbaugh's stuff? No.
Go away little man.
Whine? lol....You are toothless pesky gnat, my dear. I welcome your slurs, for it shows your desperation.
Your answer; Limbaugh's opinions you posted?, No, I do not agree with them.
Your reading comprehension is dwindling the further down the thread we get. Curb your urge to spew ad hominem insults for just one minute, and take a deep breath. I asked you specifically about Chafets' defense of those comments. And I asked you because they are defenses that you use on a regular basis. "Not my sense of humor, but it's not a lie," "It's his opinion," etc.
Grow up, you have your answer from me. Chafet's defense of Limbaugh is irrelevant to me, I do not agree with Limbaugh's take of the items you posted. If that is beyond your comprehension, tough.
You can sit there and demand all day long, you look ridiculous.
Sorry, Tommy, but I get it. What I also get is that what he does is utterly stupid. He isn't 'funny', he isn't 'smooth', he isn't 'endearing' in any sense.
I do not care about satire. I do not care about political entertainment. I do not care about humor. I DO care about FACTS. I DO care about being educated. I DO care about discussing issues in a FACTUAL and intelligent manner.
Rush Limbaugh fails on all those counts. As far as I am concerned, he is a zero and no amount of money thrown at him will change that.
All right.
So would you say then that his popularity is a reflection of the appalling lack of intellectual curiosity we have in this country?
Rabbit, As I said, I don't believe his listeners gravitate toward him for substantive policy or education on issues. They go to him to have their dislike of liberalism validated, probably, and a laugh or two. They may believe his every word, I don't know, but it definitely shows intellectual laziness on their part for they have no interest in hearing both sides of an issue, they just want to hear theirs. Why do you think Rush would never have some issue debate on his show with some informed person from the left? That is not what he does, his is a totally controlled environment to feed his ego and make tons of dough giving his listeners what they eat up.
To answer your question, much of our country has very little interest in anything really important, politically speaking. It's sad, I agree.
"To answer your question, much of our country has very little interest in anything really important, politically speaking. It's sad, I agree."
Thing is, most of that is on the Right. Why is that? Why is the Right intimidated by logic, intelligence, and thoughtful examination of the issues? Why, instead, do they engage in 'intellectual laziness'?
In other words, his loyal listeners are idiots who get the joke and the liberals who call him out for his lies and hate speech are idiots who don't get the joke?
And in between, high above on some mountaintop of enlightenment, there's you and Keith Olbermann?
So his listeners don't "get the joke" either?
it's obvious why you're being so cagey about all of this: You want to defend Limbaugh without explicitly defending the content of his speech. You can't have it both ways. The "it's all a joke" defense is one of the most transparent right wing tactics out there.
"The "it's all a joke" defense is one of the most transparent right wing tactics out there."
I have yet to hear that pathetic defense from ANY of the lib talkers.
I have never used the phrase "it's all a joke", that is your cagey way of putting words in my mouth. I have said what he does is intentionally poke fun at liberalism, in a satirical way. That is not the same as dismissing his every word as nothing more than a joke. He offends on purpose, he doesn't care about what affect his words may have, he is self centered, egotistical and all about himself. What he craves and what he needs is attention, for if that dries up, so does whatever relevancy he and his advertisers think he has - and poof, he is not as bankable or topical as his lifestyle demands.
I have explained this enough, if you don't get it, you never will. And I could care less. Carry on with your hysterical foot stomping where he is concerned......you are his biggest joke, and most important ally. If only you had the sense to realize it, Limbaugh prays you never will. He is right on that.
Does he mean what he says or doesn't he? If he does, then the criticism is warranted. If he doesn't, then you are saying "it's all a joke". And if we don't know when he means what he says and when he doesn't, then criticism is always warranted just to be on the safe side.
As for the "joke" being on his critics, why should anyone care what a jackass like Limbaugh thinks about those who don't accept his tactics? If his critics have no reason to care, why bring it up?
"In other words, his loyal listeners are idiots who get the joke and the liberals who call him out for his lies and hate speech are idiots who don't get the joke?"
That's exactly what Drugbaugh and his audience of idiots, fascists, racists, and liars will say.
Also, Mike Malloy http://www.mikemalloy.com crrectly called for Drugbaugh's arrest for trying to incite possible riots at the Democratic National Convention.
"Rabbit, As I said, I don't believe his listeners gravitate toward him for substantive policy or education on issues."--tommy
You obviously have never answered phones for a congressman. In college, I interned for a Republican and later a Democrat and had to answer the phones of constituents in both cases. A good deal of the most ignorant callers were repeating Rush's radio or TV show lines just about verbatim. You simply would not believe the influence Rush has over really stupid people - and there are a lot of them out there. A lot.
That was about 15 years ago (give or take a few years) and I don't know exactly how it is these days, but I can't imagine these people have changed all that much. I still talk to people occasionally who mention that Rush is the only person they trust for their "news".
Now, Rush has very little influence over educated people who listen to him, but can form their own opinions. I think there are quite a few people like that as well, but not nearly as much as the former from my own experience.
I think this is another example of you living in California and not really understanding what goes on in the red states. It is quite different out here.
So would you say then that his popularity is a reflection of the appalling lack of intellectual curiosity we have in this country?---Rabbit Lover
To answer your question, much of our country has very little interest in anything really important, politically speaking. ---Tommy
No, his listeners are very interested in very important political matters, much more so than the average person. This is basic to understanding what’s going on here.
Again, you'll get no argument from me about the points you raise. Where I imagine we might disagree, though, is the degree to which it ultimately matters whether or not Limbaugh's show is intended as absurdist entertainment when he has an actual influence on peoples' voting behavior, style of argumentation, perceptions of mass media, and ideological leanings.
Whether people 'get' that it's a joke or not seems, to me, to be relevant only to people who think he's actually funny. I, like you, find his show boring and his jokes pathetically weak. But my own opinion doesn't really matter when I'm confronted with the grim reality that Limbaugh's show has political impact, as evidenced by the fact that prominent conservatives love to give interviews on his show. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld apparently see Limbaugh's show as something a bit more useful than mere entertainment and satire: it is a venue to firm up support for their positions among a sympathetic audience, and to circulate statements through mass media with before a host who is totally nonconfrontational to them.
This is why I don't think MMFA is off base in highlighting Limbaugh's misrepresentation of facts, his jokes about racial stereotypes, and the like: whether he means it as a joke or not really isn't the issue so long as his influence is real.
Again, you'll get no argument from me about the points you raise. Where I imagine we might disagree, though, is the degree to which it ultimately matters whether or not Limbaugh's show is intended as absurdist entertainment when he has an actual influence on peoples' voting behavior, style of argumentation, perceptions of mass media, and ideological leanings.
Whether people 'get' that it's a joke or not seems, to me, to be relevant only to people who think he's actually funny. I, like you, find his show boring and his jokes pathetically weak. But my own opinion doesn't really matter when I'm confronted with the grim reality that Limbaugh's show has political impact, as evidenced by the fact that prominent conservatives love to give interviews on his show. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld apparently see Limbaugh's show as something a bit more useful than mere entertainment and satire: it is a venue to firm up support for their positions among a sympathetic audience, and to circulate statements through mass media with before a host who is totally nonconfrontational to them.
This is why I don't think MMFA is off base in highlighting Limbaugh's misrepresentation of facts, his jokes about racial stereotypes, and the like: whether he means it as a joke or not really isn't the issue so long as his influence is real.
What will never penetrate the hysterical groupthink among Rush-fearing liberals is the fact that most of his schtick is satire. It's political entertainment. It's caricature. It's ultra partisan schmoozy anti-liberal needling daytime talk radio. TOMMY
Here's where that excuse fall flat: where's the funniness and the wit?
Like Al Franken says every time righties claim something's a joke: aren't jokes supposed to be funny?
And yet he *says* that he's doing just that. He talks all the time about how he's educating his listeners, how he as all the facts and the liberals don't, and so forth. I'm sure everyone around here knows at least one person who takes what Limbaugh -- and Hannity and Savage and the rest of them -- say as if it's the gospel truth and repeat it accordingly.
You say you aren't supporting him, and yet you pretend that he's the exact opposite of what he says he is. Or is his Institute for Conservative Studies (or whatever it's called) simply more satire? If so, then has he been pulling a two decades-long version of what Colbert does? If everything he says is satire, then clearly he's mocking the conservative positions that he claims to hold. And yet that doesn't seem to be the case.
As for Olbermann, I always assumed he calls him "Comedian Rush Limbaugh" because so much of what Limbaugh says is so ridiculous it can't be taken seriously. Clearly, though, WPIW is meant to be taken seriously, since he has eviscerated some pretty awful people on there (i.e., Wal-Mart demanding all that money back from that woman who was in a car accident and left permanently disabled). Best Person in the World, however, tends to be more light-hearted.
BTW, Limbaugh has many listeners who call in and tell him how wonderful he is. I guess they're all in on the joke too?
Maybe it's a two decades-long piece of performance art, with audience participation. Yeah, that's the ticket!
If you don't want us to be able to read your posts by using microscopic text, why post at all?
I didn't realize. Thanks. Sorry, BRADOC. But MM had better not do it to ME. I'll just have to go over there and ring their dad-burned liberal necks!
You can always fall back on ALL CAPS like what's his name.
Brainwashed dittoheads always say Limbaugh must have been kidding when Limbaugh says something they can't believe. That's part of how the Limbaugh scam works. He convinces his listeners of as many lies as possible. All not accepted are explained away as "satire." Some listeners believe every word. Some explain away all of it. None of it is actually satire. Its all lies and hatred.
Part of the "authoritarian personalty" defect that right wingers have glorifies evil if its successful. Kill one person-you're a criminal. Kill one million and the right will build statues of you. Its this defective reasoning that leads wingers to say things like "Rush makes millions" and Rush is very popular. Right and wrong don't exist. Only strong and weak matter to them.
"Getting under liberals' skin" is only an accomplishment if somebody irrationally hates liberals. If a left wing talker spent the day saying "conservatives want to destroy America" or conservatives take joy in watching others suffer" that leftist would be run off the air instantly and the world would hate him.
Brainwashed dittoheads always say Limbaugh must have been kidding when Limbaugh says something they can't believe. That's part of how the Limbaugh scam works. He convinces his listeners of as many lies as possible. All not accepted are explained away as "satire." Some listeners believe every word. Some explain away all of it. None of it is actually satire. Its all lies and hatred.
Part of the "authoritarian personalty" defect that right wingers have glorifies evil if its successful. Kill one person-you're a criminal. Kill one million and the right will build statues of you. Its this defective reasoning that leads wingers to say things like "Rush makes millions" and Rush is very popular. Right and wrong don't exist. Only strong and weak matter to them.
"Getting under liberals' skin" is only an accomplishment if somebody irrationally hates liberals. If a left wing talker spent the day saying "conservatives want to destroy America" or conservatives take joy in watching others suffer" that leftist would be run off the air instantly and the world would hate him.
His is not a quality driven, fact based enterprise focused on educating and informing anyone
Stop right there and no truer words have ever been spoken.
Private Sanders
Thats really the best you can do........really.....
All you can come up with is I dont care that he has more of an audience than any progressive broadcaster....wow.....talk about desperation.
Private Sanders
So you are reduced to rush is bad, conseratives bad. No wonder you are a General Wannabe. You can not deal with the popularity and success Rush has, and you have no idea why he is so popular. Let me clue you in little buddy....(i think you and Gilligan are a lot alike). Rush speaks his mind, and is not afaird of the PC police. He makes good use of jokes and satire, and he is entertaining. Some many here are so anxious to brand him a racist, yet these same people could not see the racism from Pastor Wright. Why is that? Pretty selective in your objects of attack and obsession.
In fact, Rush is so good at what he does, the libs desperately want to change the law and force the so called "fairness doctrine" just to find a way to limit his appeal. Would love to see that doctrine applied to the NYT on a daily basis, or Air (we have an audience of 4 today) America.
So you are reduced to rush is bad, conseratives bad.
No, I made a pretty clear point. I think you reduced it to something you could understand.
You can not deal with the popularity and success Rush has, and you have no idea why he is so popular.
I'm dealing just fine with Rush's popularity, I have a pretty nice life and am pretty happy. I won't say I'm particularly happy or proud that there are enough of my fellow Americans ill-informed enough that Rush is a rich man.
In a merit-based world, he would be selling vacuum cleaners door to door , but his success doesn't keep me up at night, no more than McDonald's selling billions of burgers or Paris Hilton being the public person many Americans are most interested in.
I've adapted to the low expectations of others, I've had to to keep sane. You're wrong in thinking that I have no idea why Rush is so popular. There are a lot of people like you out there. I meet them every day, sometimes telling them to get out of the street, sometimes helping them work the soda machine at the 7-11.
The average Republican-American isn't a mystery, just a curiosity.
thats a liberal for ya.......show them up on their own comment and they cut and run!!!!
Republican humor , right!!! Funny, to some.
POV, Does Rush lie or not? Start there and we can talk.
"thats a liberal for ya.......show them up on their own comment and they cut and run!!!!"--PointOfView
When did that happen? Did you accidently post that on the wrong thread or something? The premise of your argument has already been properly identified as a textbook example of a well-worn logical fallacy. The Colonel only tried to help you out. You can posture all you want, though. It is pretty amusing to watch.
POV,
As a non-military conservative, do you really want to go with "cut and run" as your zinger ;)?
show them up on their own comment and they cut and run!!!!- pointofview
Sometimes the home team doesn't need to bat in the bottom of the 9th. I guess they're cutting & running too.
You know, you're RIGHT. Absolutely right. About everything. I mean EVERYTHING! I feel so fortunate that the libs have a mighty foe like you to speak for all the right-thinking, right-living, true Americans who love their country and its right-thinking leaders. It's high time somebody took down those (ugh!) liberal, left-leaning, America hating, commie, tax and spend, soft-on-terrorists, progressive hacks like the Col., MaryJane, Irony, and the rest of those soft-headed bleeding hearts. I once was lost, but now I've found to true way to good government for all (well, the ones who count) right-thinking citizens. I am so relieved. Like after I go to the bathroom.
He did say it was high time, Maryjane.
Just kidding Donald, we love you before or after you relieve yourself :-0)
"All you can come up with is I dont care that he has more of an audience than any progressive broadcaster...."
"Jackass, the Movie" was #1 at the box office, too. The success of "Jackass' didn'r represent anything positive about the people who watched it, it represented many things NEGATIVE.
The fact that a lying, drug-addicted, fascist, racist, ignorant criminal scum like Rush Limbaugh has a huge audience represents monumental NEGATIVES against that audience. Rush's audience are made up if liars, fascists, racists, theocrats, idiots, and white supremacists.
Quoting the words of 2 black talk radio hosts, Clifford Kelley of WVON-AM 1690 http://www.wvon.com, "Rush Limbaugh is a dope fiend!", and Ambrose I. Lane Senior, host of "We Ourselves" http://www.weourselves.org, "Rush Limbaugh is a right wing criminal!"
Also, the black talk radio audience that listen to WVON are more intelligent than the idiots and fascists and racists who listen to the fat drug addicted liar Rush Limbaugh.
A million flies can't be wrong, huh?
Nope, Eddie. Neither can several million Dittoheads, at least in their minds.Compare POV's post above (You sayin' we're stoopid? Oh yeah? if'n we was stupid, how come Rush is gettin so much money from us?) to Tommy's (silly liberals, nobody takes Rush seriously, it's satire)
If Rush was doing satire, he would have to be the most moonbattiest far-left liberal on the planet. At least, to anybody who has an ideas of what satire is.
"You sayin' we're stoopid? Oh yeah? if'n we was stupid, how come Rush is gettin so much money from us?"--The Colonel
Hahahaha! Great line! I'm gonna laugh about that one for a while.
In the view of the liberal media, every piece on Rush that does not attack him is out of line.
If you tell the truth, then it is not out of line.
"If you tell the truth, then it is not out of line."
However, if you lie, or if you rubber stamp a right winger's many lies, then it is out of line.
If the progressive agenda is so popular then why does Air America struggle to stay on the air and pay their "talent". -POV
Let me see if I can put this into perspective for you: Air America and progressive radio in general caters to an audience that, for the most part, tends to think, and come to conclusions on their own. Conversely, right-wing radio is necessary for conservatives, as they need others to do the thinking for them and tell them what to think.
Liberals don't need talk radio. Don't get me wrong, it's nice to have, but we libs even question our own, unlike conservatives who usually don't know their heads from their a$$es.
Liberals as critical thinkers........yea right. That would explain why Obama is moving more and more to the center and to the right everyday. Did you catch his vote on the telecom issue today?
Fox is number 1 in cable news, and Rush is number 1 on the radio. You only have the liberal MSM, and the backlash created by the one sided view of news it provided to thank for that.
"Liberals as critical thinkers........yea right. That would explain why Obama is moving more and more to the center and to the right everyday. Did you catch his vote on the telecom issue today?"--PointOfView
There are many speculative explanations I would suppose. Are you suggesting that because Obama is moving to the center/right, he must not have the critical thinking skills we'd hoped he had? Or that Obama is indeed a liberal and a critical thinker, but he is using his critical thinking skills to position himself to the center/right?
"Fox is number 1 in cable news, and Rush is number 1 on the radio. You only have the liberal MSM, and the backlash created by the one sided view of news it provided to thank for that."--PointOfView
POV fallacy number 2. Argumentum ad Populum:
An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." --wikipedia
I don't know Jesse Jackson. Sorry. Besides it was just a generalization. Generalizations have pretty obvious limitations and anyone can easily point out inconsistencies in them.
I do find it ironic that you were apparently unable to argue your case against liberal superiority in critical thinking without using an obvious logical fallacy. ; )
"Liberals as critical thinkers........yea right. That would explain why Obama is moving more and more to the center and to the right everyday. Did you catch his vote on the telecom issue today?
Fox is number 1 in cable news, and Rush is number 1 on the radio. You only have the liberal MSM, and the backlash created by the one sided view of news it provided to thank for that."
As I said before, Jackass The Movie was #1 at the box office, and that represented NEGATIVE things about society. The negative-based success of Fox Lies and Rush is that their audience is composed of people that refuse to think, of people that are willfully ignorant, of people that are bigger liars than Rush and the liars at Fox, of people that are fascists, of people that are racists, of people who choose to be stupid.
In cotnrast, the audience at Air America/liberal talk radio/progressive talk radio, as well as the audience at the national black talk radio network THE POWER which falls in the category of black talk radio/urban talk radio, are both composed of people that are criticial thinkers, of people that not only are willing to be educated, but in many instances, the audience educates both the hosts and themselves. Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz, Mike Malloy, Mike Papantonio, and black talk radio's Joe Madison and Warren Ballantine and Ambrose I. Lane Senior and Roland S. Martin, educate their audience and their audience educates them.
Nova M's Mike Malloy and "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison are just 2 of several credible talk radio hosts who have more credibility than Liar Limbaugh and his audience of hateful evil loudmouth stupid liars, naming 2 examples.
Huh?
The whole reason we have a Democratic Congress today is BECAUSE the Conservatives question their own. They wouldn't vote them back in and in some cases voted for more conservative Dems.
AND, Obama actually has a chance because of dissatisfaction with the lack of conservatism from the GOP in general and McCain specifically. Please bring a clue to the table.
The amount of listerners rush has, as well as the money he is being paid points to a gap in the liberal progressive agenda, even if those here choose to ignore or deny it.
From your POV perhaps. From mine it shows that selling bullsh!t to gullible fools, (while at the same preaching to a very rich choir) is a big money maker.
Your point, like most of his, falls apart under the weigth of critical thinking, no matter how many fools tune in every week. REALITY is not determined by a democratic vote. (And even if it was, I'm willing to bet that he has far more haters than loyal listeners.)
...I'm willing to bet that he has far more haters than loyal listeners.--NGE
http://gawker.com/5002970/the-political-leanings-of-americas-anchors
Limbaugh is at the far right of the chart.
Off topic...
I rarely look back at an article a week old. But I haven’t been posting that much and remembered I had, I think, last posted on the Mathews Regular People article on July 1, and was curious if there had been any additional comments.
I posted three comments and all were gone.
One I saved:
"Mathews is trying to include at the same time he is excluding. That is to say he wants to have ALL Whites, including non-WASPS, seen as real Americans. He is knowingly trying to get this “into the bloodstream”, as Mathews himself would put it."
They were all short. Another one basically said that Mathews must have been told by somebody at his network that his choice of words would be controversial as he doesn't seem like so unsympathetic a figure in real life as to engender that kind of disloyalty---that no one would warn him.
The third said that “To be fair to Mathews…”, we don't know but that he was just following orders basically as to the message he was delivering by his choice of words. That he was doing his job as he understood it.
The last two comments I explicitly worded as my opinion, my guess. The last one was even exculpatory of Mathews (though putting the onus on management). The first comment on real Americans I’ve expressed variations of before.
Can someone give me some insight on the deletions? I don’t remember being deleted before (maybe I should check more often).
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807010011?f=s_searc
"If he is a bad as you all say, then explain the 400 million dollar contract. If the progressive agenda is so popular then why does Air America struggle to stay on the air and pay their "talent"."--PointOfView
That is a basic logical fallacy that a good deal of conservatives seem to believe. It is called argumentum ad crumenam:
An argumentum ad crumenam argument, also known as an argument to the purse, is a logical fallacy of concluding that a statement is correct because the speaker is rich (or that a statement is incorrect because the speaker is poor).
This fallacy is notably prevalent in art, movie, video game, or music criticism in the form "you can try to criticize product x, but it makes millions, so it must have some merit. --wikipedia
Wow, we sure needed that lesson. I thought all rich people's statements were always correct, and poor people lied all the time.
Thanks for that illuminating bit of knowledge.
This is priceless stuff. Before this thread is over I might be convinced that you're a satire of a logic-impaired, concrete-thinking wingnut. It's hilarious to see you--with zero self-awareness--tick off a checklist of abstract concepts that you can't wrap your mind around.
Sarcasm? check
Analogy? check
Simile? check
Basic rules of logic? check
Thanks for that illuminating bit of knowledge."--tommy
Tommy, obviously PointOfView is having a bit of a hard time with it. My response was directed at his post. Maybe that wasn't clear to you. However, I am encouraged that you seem to have figured it out without any help from me.
"If he is a bad as you all say, then explain the 400 million dollar contract."
The corporatist conservative Republicans that control the corporatist conservative media arfe just as or more right wing than Drugbaugh is. They have both political and financial reasons for continuing to sustain Liar Drugbaugh.
The lying cons' liberal media lie is one their most repeated big lies.
This is a conservative media, and the conservative media gave a pro-Republican fluff and whitewash story about Liar Limbaugh, and it was written by a lying right wing fascist racist theocratic conservative Republican media hack named Republican Liar Zev Chafets.
He's got a point you know. NPR is full of boring facts while Rush has lots of fun ranting and spin!
Chafets is a lying right wing Republican. He's clearly auditioning for GOP-Fox Lies Channel.
Also, Liar Chafets isn't worrited about Drugbaugh getting attacked in the corporate conservative Republican Party controlled news media, he's worried about himself. Liar Chaftes KNOWS he's getting destroyed in the liberal blogs for his pro-Republican fluff piece with Drugbaugh.
I want to know. I look at Iowa, I look at Illinois—I want to see the murders. I want to see the looting. I want to see all the stuff that happened in New Orleans. I see devastation in Iowa and Illinois that dwarfs what happened in New Orleans. I see people working together. I see people trying to save their property…I don’t see a bunch of people running around waving guns at helicopters, I don’t see a bunch of people running shooting cops. I don’t see a bunch of people raping people on the street. I don’t see a bunch of people doing everything they can…whining and moaning—where’s FEMA, where’s BUSH. I see the heartland of America. When I look at Iowa and when I look at Illinois, I see the backbone of America.
Followed by the question, "when will the left get a sense of humor?
But, Gov., those aren't lies, they're his opinions.
...Right, and his opinions are fairly harmless and self-centered once the racisms is deleted:
"I want... I look... I look... I want... I want... I want... I see... I see... I see... I don’t see.... I don’t see... I don’t see... I don’t see... I see... I look... I look... I see the backbone of America."
That's funny, because I looked at Iowa and I saw people getting helped by FEMA in a timely, ordely manner.
Of course. They were melanin-impaired.
LIMBAUGH: I see the heartland of America.
TRANSLATION: Not like New Orleans where all they have is welfare Negroes...
I want to know. I look at Iowa, I look at Illinois—I want to see the murders. I want to see the looting. I want to see all the stuff that happened in New Orleans.
Then do a Google search, Rush.
http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/22736259.html
GARFIELD: Your piece on Limbaugh was very generous, I would say even flattering. You seem to give him a pass for his excesses. And when I'm talking about excesses, I'm talking about ad hominem attacks, truly mean-spirited stuff that goes way beyond satire and into the politics of vilification, and also playing fast and loose with the truth, seizing on some news item and grossly misrepresenting it and creating a lot of hubbub, using as the kernel of his satire something that is just fundamentally untrue.
CHAFETS: Well, do you have an example of that? I'm not an apologist for Rush Limbaugh, but I'm a little bit defensive because I think that the liberal media takes such an unfair view of him.
This guy needs to be provided with an example of Limbaugh's well-documented "mean-spirited stuff" before he'll even acknowledge the premise of the question? The "liberal media" takes an "unfair view" of Limbaugh? Who is this guy's editor?
Just give me access to transcripts of Rush's show, and I'll give you hundreds of examples.
Jeff Christie generates three hours of examples during each of his radio pukefests.
This country would be a better place if RUSH would do like GENERAL MacARTHER and just fade away.
Limbaugh already has enough money for several people in several lifetimes...everything about him now is pure, unadulterated ego. I honestly think that will be his undoing...his ego having no restraints. When people in the public eye reach that level of success but cannot control their own arrogance, that's a recipe for a downfall.
But that's just my opinion, sorry if you don't get it... :)
"I hear people being vilified on the radio on all sorts of radio stations by all sorts of people all day long. And Limbaugh is not worse than many of the ones I hear, even on NPR. He just has a different point of view."
how many times can these people use this "but mommy, they did it too!" argument? how old are these people? two wrongs don't make a right, ask any 10 year old.
He has never had to face any actual opponet in debate and likely never will.
His show is nothing more than heavily stage-managed entertainment, lacking in real substantive content...but the ditto-knobs don't get it.
a small, if rich .... population.
Eweston, that small wealthy population is the one that benefits from the ideology of Rush & the GOP, but you're not implying that they're his audience, are you?
The elites who benefit from Rush's propaganda are yachting and golfing on weekday mornings, not listening to the radio.
His audience, judging from the calls I hear, is made up of working & middle class suckers, who think they'd be yachting, too, if it weren't for those Mexicans and gays and Democrats.
Col:
Unfortunately, they aren't his only audience. My aunt and her entire extended family (they are grandparents, and this includes their grandchildren) are all faithful Rush listeners. They are intelligent, well-educated, wealthy, and apparently incapable of critical thinking in this area. For example, they literally didn't speak to us for months when we initially opposed the Iraq war, spouting Rush's arguments for it almost verbatim. They disregard the fact that our objections have been proven accurate and they continue to vomit forth all the dittohead talking points. They absolutely refuse to acknowledge any problems, even when their claims are mutually contradictory (Obama is a "stealth muslim" with a crazy Christian pastor).
I know other people like this, too, and I don't understand any of them.
However, in this case what I am talking about is that their pereception of facts is so ignorantly wrong that you can't even get to the philosophical part. And what annoys me the most is that they believe they have superior knowledge of the facts...even if you show them otherwise.
This is exactly how a conservative views a liberal, and how a liberal views a conservative. This is how it has been for as long as there have been opposing views - this is nothing new.
Irony:
I completely agree. I don't understand it and I am simultaneously frightened and disgusted by it; when I talk to people who ignore what they don't like I don't even know how to respond, and I seem to be meeting more of them recently. Critical thinking is an essential skill for making good decisions, and ignoring unpleasant facts actually PREVENTS us from making good decisions. Rational people can and do disagree often, but ignoring facts you don't like essentially makes one irrational and destroys any chance at honest debate.
"It's political entertainment. It's caricature. It's ultra partisan schmoozy anti-liberal needling daytime talk radio. It's poking fun and getting under the skin of the left through exaggeration; smooth talking, cigar puffing, condescending and swaggering invective meant to drive liberals and those he eviscerates crazy."
You should tell your relatives they've been conned by someone who only wants to rile the liberals up. He doesn't mean anything he says.
Ha, and they fell for it hook line and sinker.
Sorry, Tommy but I couldn't resist that. I understand what you're getting at but far too many of his listeners are like History's family and my family and lots of other families.
I think we've all got friends and relatives like that. They believe that every utterance from Limbaugh's lips is gospel. I've got a friend who's a faithful listener and she told me she was willing to sacrifice the lives of both her daughters for George W. Bush's War in Iraq. This is a college educated woman.
It was really a scary thing to see and hear.
"...are all faithful Rush listeners. They are intelligent, well-educated, wealthy, and apparently incapable of critical thinking in this area."--HistoryGeek
They are likely phobic of the Democratic Party and that which it represents and who it represents (associations with liberal changes in the latter half of the 20th century, and non real Americans---even sometimes when they themselves are not real Americans.)
You can no more reason them out of their "beliefs" than you can a fear of heights out of someone. It's too deep in their minds for that. They may or may not be conscious of it.
You could present this notion to them in an off-handed, non-accusatory manner. Over time, they may start to become conscious of their own thinking process in this area.
"I do think that it's good for the American media climate to have at least one very strong conservative Republican voice that is heard, you know, across the country."
That's pretyy much ALL that's heard on talk radio.
How true. Self-hating anti-black balck Republicans like the right wing racist white surpemacist of color Clarence Thomas will be allowed to stay as long he says "Yes' Massa, Boss White Conservative" and "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE MORE THAN YOU, MASSA' BOSS WHITE CONSERVATIVE!", and seeks political alliances with the KKK and the Aryan Nations and other white supremacist groups. Thomas married a white woman because he is racist against other blacks, and because Thomas wants to make nice with racist white supremacists.
The Republicans want to shut down black talk radio, specifically black talk radio hosts like Joe Madison and Clifford Kelley, especially since Kelly once called Limbaugh a dope fiend, which he is.
The profession of journalism as we knew it is dead!! All we have now is sensationalism and propagandism, which are both detriments to democracy. I don't fault Limbaugh for having his own opinion, I fault him for repeatedly suggesting false things about people who aren't of his race. And the sad part is it's not just one or two comments. He has an entire body of work of ignorance. There is a major problem in a society where lies and distortions are rewarded with hundred million dollar contracts.
"GARFIELD: The NAACP should have a riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies?
CHAFETS: Not my sense of humor, but it's not a lie."
Excuse me??? You just showed the world what a racist A-hole you are. All Garfield did was give you the "rope" to hang yourself.
"GARFIELD: Did Limbaugh not say that Abu Ghraib was no worse than a Skull and Bones initiation?
CHAFETS: Yeah, he did. It's his opinion.
GARFIELD: Yeah. Did he not deny that genocide was committed against the American Indian and state that the population is higher now than it was before Christopher Columbus -- of Native Americans?
CHAFETS: I don't know. I didn't ask him that, either. I don't know what the population was before Christopher Columbus.
GARFIELD: Yeah, it was about 15 million and, you know, by the 19th century, it was 250,000. I mean, that's what -- that's the numbers."
But like Chafets said, it is his opinion. Even though it has no basis in reality and is a complete lie to forward a political agenda--sort of like me saying that Rush molested me as a young boy. Sure it never happened, but it is my opinion and I am entitled to present it as fact as much as he does. But of course I would never accuse him of that; I have something called integrity and decency--something Rush lacks (I guess 38 mil makes up for it).
And thank you, Vysotsky, for the tip
Thanks to commenter Vysotsky for the tip.
Another fine job by an MMFA tipster.
Hey, in case nobody mentioned it, Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot. And I didn't steal that line from anybody :-)
Nice work, MMFA Tipster Vysotsky !
I just sent Chafets an e-mail...
I was polite, but forceful. Until the end.
Sometimes I forget that you're the decider, Tommy. This occasion obviously called for a quip, but "quips" are unacceptable when I offer them when you demand an in-depth response.
Steeve's posts wasn't really funny, actually it rings pretty true, from my experience. What's funny is you providing one more demonstration of your own hypocrisy and double standards,served up with side orders of arrogance and condescension, and topped off with dessert; you thinking everybody else is confused.
Keep up the good work.
Yes indeed Donald...
Perfect evidence of how the corporations have exerted iron-fisted, fascist control over the radio airwaves.
90% of talk radio is conservative. In many areas, liberals don't even have a station, and Old Fathead dominates the airwaves. (Even though 62% of the public hates him.)
Corporate fascism.
And I think that for people who find him more obnoxious and more mean-spirited than other people that they prefer to listen to, then they should answer him by turning him off.
How can anyone pretend that Limbo & company are simply conservative talk radio hosts. These nuts have close and personal relationships with the leaders of our government. What other President invites conservative talk radio to the White House? When the Republicans need an agenda pushed they call on conservative blowhards like Limbo to push the Republican agenda.
President Bush invited ten talk hosts into the Oval Office for an hour of conversation today --Glenn Beck, Bill Bennett, Neal Boortz, Scott Hennon, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larson, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Janet Parshall and Hugh Hewitt.
When the Republicans need an agenda pushed they call on conservative blowhards like Limbo to push the Republican agenda. Turning them off is easy, getting their influence out of our government is one that needs to stop immediately.
Glenn Beck, Bill Bennett, Neal Boortz, Scott Hennon, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larson, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Janet Parshall and Hugh Hewitt
So all I have to do is preach hate and spread lies and I too can get an audience with the prez?
Sorry, not worth it.
Hurricane, there is no liberal media. This is a conservative media.
The corporate conservative media is controlled by corporatist conservative Republicans. The right wing corporatist conservative New York Times' pro-Republican Limbaugh whitewash story is the latest example of that.