Savage still claiming autism comments taken out of context, despite his prior reference to "a phony disease"
SUMMARY: Referring to Media Matters' documentation of comments in which he called autism "[a] fraud, a racket," Michael Savage said: "They're very happy that they were able to use the poor parents of autistic children to attack me when I in fact have been more supportive of the most vulnerable children in our population than anybody else in the history of radio. That's correct, me, Michael Savage." Savage went on to falsely claim that his comments about autism were taken of context, stating: "So what they did was they took a sound bite out of context and they used the poor parents of autistic children to attack me. That's very clever."
Referring to Media Matters for America's documentation of his July 16 comments in which he called autism "[a] fraud, a racket," Michael Savage said on the July 28 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program: "They're very happy that they were able to use the poor parents of autistic children to attack me when I in fact have been more supportive of the most vulnerable children in our population than anybody else in the history of radio. That's correct, me, Michael Savage." Savage went on to falsely claim that his comments about autism were taken of context, stating: "So what they did was they took a sound bite out of context and they used the poor parents of autistic children to attack me. That's very clever. I must admit that [Media Matters CEO] David Brock and the others who are funded by these far-left radical groups are very clever devils indeed, in my opinion." Savage later stated, "In the short run, they think they're counting their shekels, but in the long run, they're going to find out they're actually going to be not counting their shekels, they may be counting their time behind bars for what they're doing today."
As Media Matters noted, on July 21, Savage recast comments he made about autism in order to claim that he was "take[n] out of context," falsely suggesting that his July 16 comments -- which have generated widespread media attention and sparked protests -- 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." In fact, in his July 16 comments -- the relevant portions of which Media Matters documented with transcript and audio -- Savage said: "Now, you want me to tell you my opinion on autism, since I'm not talking about autism? A fraud, a racket. ... You know what autism is? I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is."
In the wake of widespread criticism over his July 16 comments, Savage said on July 21 that "true autism is extremely heartbreaking" and later said: "[I]t's ironic that people who hate families and children -- a group called Media Matters, filled with anti-family individuals who do not marry; they're men who like men -- would take out of context comments that I made last week directed at the misdiagnosed, the falsely diagnosed, and the outright fakers in the autism field and try to make you, the parents of the truly autistic, attack me."
Moreover, as Media Matters also documented, a broadcast of The Savage Nation that re-aired on July 9 further undermines Savage's claim that his July 16 comments were referring only to misdiagnoses of autism, and not to the disease itself, when he characterized autism as "[a] fraud, a racket." During the July 9 rebroadcast, portions of which previously were included in a YouTube clip posted on June 30 -- more than two weeks before Savage made the "fraud" comments that he now claims were taken "out of context" -- Savage acknowledged having called autism "a phony disease."
This is not the first time Savage has attacked Media Matters and Brock, its founder and CEO.
From the July 28 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: What liberals don't understand who are attacking me right now is that today it's Michael Savage, and they're -- they're gloating, oh they're happy. They're very happy that they were able to use the poor parents of autistic children to attack me when I in fact have been more supportive of the most vulnerable children in our population than anybody else in the history of radio. That's correct, me, Michael Savage.
So what they did was they took a sound bite out of context and they used the poor parents of autistic children to attack me. That's very clever. I must admit that David Brock and the others who are funded by these far-left radical groups are very clever devils indeed, in my opinion. By using poor children like this to advance their socialist communist one-world agenda. They're very clever fellows. But you know they're clever by a half, and as a matter of fact, they're too clever for their own good, which they'll find out in the long run.
In the short run, they think they're counting their shekels, but in the long run, they're going to find out they're actually going to be not counting their shekels, they may be counting their time behind bars for what they're doing today. You say it's impossible? When you bend the laws of a free society as they're bending the laws of a free society, in my opinion, to act as Stalinist agents. The day may come that we get a legitimate government in this country, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people that actually protects free speech instead of using groups like this to destroy free speech.
Honestly, I am shocked that DirectBuy dropped Savage. They just seemed to be a good fit together - slimy and sleazy all the way.
I will probably have a coronary if they drop The Detestable One, aka His Dumbness, aka Mark Levin.
The most underreported news of the week is the list of books found in the house of the man who in recent days killed a group of "liberals" in a Tennessee church:
Story.
What a piece of filth. If you want a generic pic of your typical racist, homophobic, paranoid, psychotic, redneck rightwinger then look no further than to that pic. Disgusting.
I hope Hannity et al are proud of themselves.
Absolutely.
So that guy was crazy enough to kill, but I don't have a doubt in mind that an equally visceral and completely unfounded hatred for liberals is widespread due to the influence of right wing radio. It's deplorable.
Watershed:
I agree with part of what you said, but I don't think that hatred of liberals is CAUSED by right-wing hate speech; I think it is simply encouraged and/or enhanced.
There are of course people who hate liberals independent of influence, but, in my opinion, many thousands upon thousands of people who vote against their best interests and hate their fellow Americans with a passion do so due to the near constant onslaught of emotionally charged right wing radio.
I said that the satirical New Yorker cover will not cause ONE hate crime against Muslims.
"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" and like books aren't satire by any stretch of the imagination. They are in fact marching orders for the feeble minded.
But you know thw difference, right?
I didn't blame the murders on right wing radio.
Do you just post to argue or is the New Yorker thread still sticking in your craw?
So you do not think that Adkisson wasn't influenced by those books and therefore his actions were not a result of the filth written in those books?
So what is it, Tommy. Did Adkisson 'misinterpret' the books... we're they supposed to be 'joke' books, you know, 'funny' books and he took it all way too literally or something? Give us your take, Tommy.
You just dispensed an unprovoked insult about 10 post ago. Very hypocritical, Tommy.
Ah, the truth hurts, I see.
It's painfully obvious you are going down the same path you always take whenever someone corners you. Gotta hand it to ya though: at least you are consistent.
I understand what you're saying, but I think this is more of one of those discussions about understanding what makes someone tick. At work we call it the 80/20 rule, where 80% of the issues are caused by 20% of the workers. I don't see an excuse in this discussion, when I look at this guy I think of him as an excursion. The only real question is does this excursion fall into the 90% bracket or higher, which at work we will use to decide if we want to spend the resources eliminating that excursion.
If you look at this as an excursion, talking about cause and effect makes a lot of sense. The right wing media is one possible cause, and may be considered "low hanging fruit".
I agree with part of what you said, but I don't think that hatred of liberals is CAUSED by right-wing hate speech; I think it is simply encouraged and/or enhanced.
Don't forget - when Timothy McVeigh was arrested, he had a copy of "The Turner Diaries" in his possession, which was used as evidence during his trial.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/28/okc/
I foolishly posted there many moons ago, thinking a good debate was all the Malkinites needed. I literally had my life threatened. So, be careful there, Snoopy.
You're kidding, right? Those books? I didn't read that anywhere. Did he also have Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People"? I am waiting for the defenders of this piece of horse-waste to post.
From the story to which Truthseeker provided a link:
Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.
Like I said in another thread, Savage, Hannity and O'Reilly have blood on their hands.
Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.
What a trifecta... I guess Limbaugh was too high-brow for him. ;>)
From the story in Truthseeker's link,Re: Adkisson, the Knoxville shooter;
"...he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."
and
"Owen said Adkisson's stated hatred of the liberal movement was not necessarily connected to any hostility toward Christianity or religion per say, but rather the political advocacy of the church.
The church's Web site states that it has worked for "desegregation, racial harmony, fair wages, women's rights and gay rights" since the 1950s. Current ministries involve emergency aid for the needy, school tutoring and support for the homeless, as well as a cafe that provides a gathering place for gay and lesbian high-schoolers."
Nobody is directly to blame for these murders except Adkisson, but if any of these propagandist hate-mongers (O'Reilly, Hannity, Weiner) can look another human being in the eye and say they don't understand how they may have influenced an already unstable person with their lies, they're either lying again, or as insane as the killer.
The quotes above are paraphrased from Adkisson's words, but they're pretty much in ine with the right wing media, and not really any nuttier or more hysterical sounding than the usual posts here from Rinohunter, Proudconservative or AnotherAmerican. This guy may be a wacko, but ideologically, not really out of line with the 20(?)%ers.
Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.
Well, what I always said would happen has happened. The extreme right-wingers, including Savage, perhaps especially Savage, have pushed someone over the edge and people are dead.
Here's my next prediction: it will happen more often.
We need more resistance to these extremists.
So Savage is threatening Brock and MM's staff with prison? HAHAHAHA!
Think I'll phone the men in the white coats and have them cart Savage away for his and our safety...
And here come the throngs of barely literate Savage defenders all using names that end in number strings. Or just that one guy using lots of log ins.
Note to the throngs or that one guy: Savage said what he said and only backed off of it when it got him bad publicity. Question for you- Was Savage lying about his true beliefs when he made the initial remark or is he lying now when he claims he meant something else entirely? One of those has to be true.
Savage: "The day may come that we get a legitimate government in this country, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people that actually protects free speech instead of using groups like this to destroy free speech."
I'm looking for that day to come very soon. January 20, 2009 - the day President Barack Obama, as one of his first actions in office, signs an Executive Order reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine and putting hate merchants like Savage, Hannity, Levin, O'Reilly, and Jeff Christie out of work.
Before, I was against the FD. Now... I say bring it back. The time has come to shut these bastards down for good. And I do NOT wanna hear a damn thing about 'free speech'. It's not even the issue here but even if it was these morons have abused that right to no end.
With rights come responsibilities. And these morons, IMO, have forfeited them.
Simplistic as in you mockingly think it's all about answering petty insults with petty insults. You know damn well it's much more than that simplistic garbage.
How to reinstate it? Do it the way it was done the first time. Real tough, huh?
The media had a hell of a lot more integrity back then than it does now. You don't see any Murrows or Collingwoods or Cronkites out there, do ya?
Compare them to the trash we have now: Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly, and even the Big Three Anchors - Williams, Gibson, and especially Couric.
Simplistic? Then tell us how you implement the FD with respect to radio talkers giving their opinions? Specifics, please.
Simple. If a radio station carries three hours of a conservative talker, they would have to carry three hours of a liberal talker.
What if their ratings are so dismal for one or the other that they can't get advertisers to sponsor it? Since this is government mandated, do we, the taxpayers, step in and compensate for lost revenue? If not, is that fair to the station owner and it's employees? No.
Is it fair now for us liberals and progressives to be subjected to worthless garbage on OUR AIRWAVES?? Hell, no.
I'm sure the ratings would not be as imbalanced as your scenario suggests. Radio stations had no problem getting advertisers when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect before - they'll have no problem if it's brought back.
I'd say it's due to the free market forces you conservatives so revere! Too bad if the ratings suck. Free market forces, free market forces, free market forces!!!
It's all about money for the radio Cons. They don't care about truth or equality...just money.
What was that Bible verse about heaven, a camel and the eye of a needle?
One of the biggest myths is that the Fairness Doctrine requires equal time.
IT DOES NOT.
It merely requires that an opposing viewpoint have the chance to air. That's it.
The Fairness Doctrine is not the solution. The Telecom Act needs to be repealed. Only then can liberal and progressive talk radio fail on its own.
So why not get a liberal to have his or her own talk show on the air? There isn't anything stopping that from happening is there?
(Not trying to be smarmy or anything, just thought that would be a solution)
"No, let the people decide what's on the air through their support via ratings, let advertisers support who they feel gives them the best advantage in the market."
Are you serious? Here in DC, the cons have talk radio purty much all to themselves with two AM stations and one FM station: one AMer with a big signal and one AMer with a modest signal. The FM signal is quite strong and it even has a simulcast on a rather strong AM signal. The lib station, on the other hand, is on a sucky AM frequency with an even suckier signal.
Now... would you find that odd considering that the DC area is quite liberal? With those facts, can you say with a straight face that the DC area is being adequately served by talk radio according to its demographic?
"It is what it is."
No offense intended but I really detest statements such as that. It is such a cop-out.
OK, so why not have someone with a lot of money set up a powerhouse AM/FM station and let him bring in liberal talk show hosts, both local and national?
Maybe one day I can find myself listening to some guy or girl who ends up considered to be the "liberal Rush Limbaugh" (and if it's a girl maybe she can be hot, because even conservatives can appreciate beauty ;) )
More twisted fantasy world views of the world of talk radio.
No regard for the effects of the Telecom Act.
If liberal radio is doomed to fail, it deserves to fail in a market that's truly free, not where a handful of conglomerates own most of the stations and willfully flank markets with professional right-wing liars.
"Exactly, there are tons of very wealthy liberals out there who could do just that"
It's pretty hard to buy up the necessary FCC licenses and radio stations in order to do "just that" when a vast majority of them are already owned by corporate control freaks who purposely flank markets with professional right-wing liars. You think they're going to sell their licenses to a wealthy liberal and jeopardize their ability to control the message? FAT CHANCE.
While there may be tons of very wealthy liberals, NO, they can't do "just that."
"...a vast majority of them are already owned by corporate control freaks who purposely flank markets with professional right-wing liars."
Excellent point. THIS is what the Right either fails to see or is unwilling to see.
"So why not get a liberal to have his or her own talk show on the air? There isn't anything stopping that from happening is there?"
It is happening, but it's growth is hampered by a small group of wealthy corporate control freaks owning a vast majority of the radio stations, flanking the markets with professional right-wing liars, and refusing to give strong-performing progressive talkers the same opportunities.
Hartmann and Schultz have beaten the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh in a few of the markets where stations have embraced them, but the current ownership structure made possible by the repeal of the Telecom Act allows the corporate control freaks like Lowry Mays to decide who gets the opportunities and who doesn't.
Tommy likes to draw conclusions and attribute it all to "market forces" but he is unequivocally wrong.
That is such a crock of baloney. I know you liberals love to shift the blame for the ineffectiveness of left wing talk anywhere you can find an opening. But to continually assert that owners of radio stations are more concerned with pushing ideology through screaming talk show hosts, which is asinine in and of itself (just look at the 2006 election and the recent Republican primary), at the expense of profits and jobs is flat out ridiculous. You all keep saying this but the only proof you ever offer up is your own statements.
If you can produce one liberal talk show host that would generate the buzz, or the ratings that many conservative talkers do, those same radio station owners would line up around the block to sign them up, fast. If you think otherwise, then you are seriously delusional.
Stop whining, it is so old.
Oh Weiner, Weiner, Weiner. We don't want to take away your free speech...
We just want the microphone.
I'm astonished. The shameless denial and projection by this man is unbelievable. And how pathetic and dishonest to martyr himself by dragging out the First Amendment.
The Savage Weiner is a victim only of himself, his hate, and his stupidity, no one else.
They didn't include his plans for a lawsuit against MM and where he asked all of us to donate to his defense fund...
In any case, how come when he says something he claims it's protected by free speech, but when someone else says something that he disagrees with, he wants them imprsoned? Aren't we entitled to the same rights?
Is that what it is? I never thought he was "insane", but there is something starting to show itself in these past few weeks following the autism firestorm, primarily with this war he wants to wage with Media Matters. First he begins to smear them in every way possible (like he did last week), then he asks people to demand MM's tax records, saying that they're an illegal non-profit, then he hires a private investigator to do an investigation on Media Matters (which all came from a few internet articles) (I can't confirm if it was in fact a private investigator), and then he says he will file a lawsuit against MM (while filing for an appeal against CAIR) and needs half a million to do it.
I'm still trying to understand the whole George Soros and Hillary Clinton connection, how MMFA is filled with Soviet anti-family facists, and how MMFA is an enemy of free speech. Also, if MMFA is in fact an illegal institution, how come it was allowed to operate for this long?
... and to think that there was a day when I was planning on donating to his defense fund to protect the freedom of speech...
If it wasn't for the fact that I'm following this thing so closely I'd ask for who else was available for my listening/informing/entertaining during the hours he's on
But of course we took his retrotext (may I call it what it is?) out of context didn't we? And we violated copyright law by posting segments of his show without permission, and we're trying to take away people's right to free speech because we want to censor Michael Savage... *rolleyes*
If Savage does go through with his lawsuit, where can I go to support Media Matters? IMO what he's doing to MM is a few notches below what he did to the defenseless children and their families. I do hope it goes before the 9 Grandparents just so there can be a national precedent for what he's trying to do to a news watchdog organization.
I still can't believe I supported this man... It's like the disguise has come off him (or the blinders have come off me [or both])
Try for Air America, Nova M, and The Jones Network DW.
As I remember the FD. An alternative opinion was given about five minutes to refute 25 minutes. Exclusive of advertising time. So opponets of it are saying that fives times the air time of an opponets air time somehow puts my heros at a disadvantage. One they could not survive?
I understood it as a form of "to balance out the playing field, we're going to force some of these conservative political talk show hosts off the air and replace them with liberal hosts in the name of 'fairness'", where people like Rush, Hannity, Savage, Boortz, and Beck would be spending sleepless nights wondering if they were going to have an audience to speak to the next morning (while people like Clark Howard and Jim Rome will be 100% unaffected because they don't fall under conservative political talk radio ). Guess the sources, you'll get them right.
I for one would like to see a balance of the two sides on the radio (and TV as well), but I also would like for that to be decided by free market capitalist forces than by a few select individuals.
Also, on a partially related field, who will enforce the FD? The FCC? Obama's Department of Fairness?
IMO Weiner is making no friends among mainstream conservatives in "best defense is a good offense-ing" MMfA (IMO), because those folks also have several media watchdog dot org groups. I don't think the feds will do a tax review on MMfA at Weiner's request without also auditing those other groups - the appearance of fairness will be maintained since the Nov elections are only 3 months away.
The Soros-Hillary-MMfA connection may exist, but I don't see why it is deemed important to the mad-dog righties. Google Richard Mellon Scaife -- a bazillionaire republican who has funded dozens of right-wing think tanks since the '70s. He's a big funder of Mark Levin's other job -- president of Landmark Legal Foundation. That's another dot org ... let's get the IRS to audit that one too!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm
Oh please "they may be counting their time behind bars for what they're doing today."
I can't wait for that claim to have a day in court. Maybe Savage should review what happened to Jerry Falwell when he tried to use the courts to bully a rightfull accuser of lying.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/5/16/213627/818
Two questions for those who want Savage off the air:
1) Who will be replacing him? Someone better or someone worse? (I know, doubtful, but still possible)
and (place the drink down before reading further)
2) Remember that talk he had a couple months about the possibility of running for President of the United States in 2012? (Now THERE's a candidate who will guarantee change for America!)
So, there's a GOP candidate for governor in my state who claims to have invented an air engine to solve all of our energy problems.
I think I can speak for a goodly number of folks on the MSM. Tell us what we need to know to make informed desicions. You wanna say someones full of it, wail baby! Do it after we have been informed. If some of the political info is strictly selfserving to the source, say it.
Why can't Mr. Savage step up and be a man? I think he is the one lacking in that department. Now he is just outright lying. Anyone with a brain who reads the transcript can see that the comments were light years beyond "taken out of context."
http://autismparents.net/the-weiner-nation-great-michael-savage-pic/
http://autismparents.net/michael-savage-autism-apology/Besides the remark about having criminal penalties under “a legitimate government” for quoting someone (out of context or not), there were a couple others I found interesting. One was his assertion that “we are living in a neofascist state” ruled by the Left. He also implied there was a behind-the-scenes connection between the timing of the handing down of the CAIR case verdict last Friday and MMFA’s articles on him---a conspiracy against him by the Left.
Despite this, I don’t think he’s delusional. He knows better but has decided it’s to his advantage to use MMFA as a whipping boy. This show was the first I heard him use MMFA to help raise money for his defense fund by direct request, lumping MMFA in with future CAIR suit appeals. The way I heard it, he wants to sue the IRS to force them to conduct an audit on MMFA. He said he needs another $400,000 to $500,000 more (for both causes, not each). He also indicated that he’ll lead off his upcoming semi-biographical collection of stories with his purported persecution by MMFA.
My first thought was that he’s asking for trouble by going out of his way like this to have another organization’s books scrutinized…those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. But maybe he has information that an audit of his defense fund could be in the offing and this is a preemptive move to gain the high ground with regards to misuse of funds charges. If he is investigated for misuse of funds, he can then frame it on his show so as to look like it’s only his enemies retaliating in kind for what he started against them (just my speculation).
Adkisson Republicans = Republicans.
The past 30 years are incontrovertible proof.
I'm listening to Weiner as I post (7/30/08), taped from earlier (I guess today, but ??).
He is justifying the cover-position he's taken on autism and has a guest, Dr. Breggin, a supposed expert, who agrees. So I Googled Dr. Breggin, who turns out to be a notorious "expert-witness" in court cases who has a long list of discreditations (odd, I know, but I found this at foxnews):
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62922,00.html
one example of several in the article:
"A Maryland court ruled in 1995: "The court believes not only is [Dr. Breggin] unqualified to render the opinions that he did, I believe that his bias in this case is blinding … The court is going to strike the testimony of Dr. Breggin, finding that it has no rational basis …"
He was off today. The Dr. Breggin interview was from last week Tuesday, the 22nd.
As I remember it he's pretty smooth.
OK, good, thanks, I can turn it off!
Sorry to say Ladies and Gentlemen. Savage is correct. Nothing MMFA does is for the good of all the People in the United States. They are placed there to put down free speech, the real truth about the Democrat Parrty is ignored and attacks anything that goes against their Socialist agenda.
We do not need the MMFA. They truly are too liberal for my taste.
We do not need the MMFA. They truly are too liberal for my taste. (BVDs)
I wonder if the Knoxville wingnut started talking in the first person plural shortly before his "statement".
"Nothing MMFA does is for the good of all the People in the United States. They are placed there to put down free speech, the real truth about the Democrat Parrty is ignored and attacks anything that goes against their Socialist agenda.We do not need the MMFA. They truly are too liberal for my taste."
So if a website is too liberal for you, then it's no good for anybody. Thanks for volunteering to be the arbiter of what's necessary based on your radical right-wing views, but I don't think you'll get the job.
And somehow this sentiment doesn't violate the principle of "free speech" itself. I'm sure you go onto the boards of right-wing sites and complain that what they do isn't done for the good of all the people, that they ignore the truth about the Republican party and attack anything that goes against their fascist agenda. Right? Or is working from a political viewpoint only a problem when the left does it?
Another idiot troll regurgitating the standard righty BS.
Hey, if you do not like MM then take yourself out of here. You certainly are not adding anything to the discussion anyway, Mr. Troll.
Does anyone have a channel tuner or on/off switch on their radios? If you don't there must be a plug or batteries you can disconnect from.
A Vote for Obama is a Vote for Change in the WRONG direction.
"A vote for obama is a vote for change in the wrong direction"
I'll take any direction that isn't further down the bush/cheney rabbit hole. We keep going this way and some facist right wing nut job with a penchant for card suits is going to behead us.