Time has Beck praising Limbaugh's "honesty" in Time 100 profile
SUMMARY: In a Time magazine profile, Glenn Beck writes that Rush Limbaugh's "consistency, insight and honesty have earned him a level of trust with his listeners that politicians can only dream of." But Media Matters has documented many examples of falsehoods, misleading commentary, and smears by Limbaugh.
For its annual Time 100 "World's Most Influential People," Time magazine commissioned Fox News host Glenn Beck to profile conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, as one of the year's most influential figures. In the profile, Beck wrote of Limbaugh: "His consistency, insight and honesty have earned him a level of trust with his listeners that politicians can only dream of." However, Media Matters for America has documented numerous incidents over the years in which Limbaugh has engaged in false or misleading commentary, which belies Beck's claim of Limbaugh's honesty.
Additionally, Media Matters has also documented repeated instances in which Beck himself has also advanced false or misleading claims, which may undermine Beck's credibility in praising Limbaugh's honesty.
At least his Time profile is under the category of "Artists and Entertainers". Comedians like Rush don't have to be honest
i think calling el rushbo an "artist" is a bit of an insult to artists. entertainer i could see, i know im splitting hairs but still.
I know I was using Keith O's characterization of Rush by calling him a comedian but if I didn't laugh at Rush, I would have to cry.
oh i entirely agree with the comedian part of rush because to me the only way anything he says makes sense is if its a joke
i guess beck must have been trying out material for his upcoming comedy tour. cause this just makes me laugh to no end.
ROFLMAO...!!! Glenn Beck, a freaky guy who has smoked waaaaaay too much pot and drunk waaaay too much, is commissioned by Time to do a profile on Rush Limbaugh, the narcotics-addicted voice of the lunatic right wing? Two peas in a pod... LOL...!
I thinkthe word "honesty" has an entirely different meaning to right wing propagandists like Beck & Lush. It just means saying whatever pops into your head at your most irrational moments, or being unafraid to spout bs as if you believe it..
Praising Limbaugh for his honesty <snicker> is like praising Hitler for his love of humanity... ;>)
RUSH wouldent know honesty if it kicked him in the -ss
Looking at this another way, only a buffoon like Glenn Beck could write a piece of this sort about a fellow idiot.
The rest of us would be like the hapless Herbert Lom (Dreyfus), assigned to read a eulogy at Clouseau's funeral. His objections to eulogizing an incompetent bumbler are overridden by political necessity when it is revealed that the speech was composed by the police chief's wife, who apparently is able to dismiss Dreyfus if he refuses to recite. During the recital, Dreyfus is unable to control his laughter at the (to him) ridiculous statements he is obliged to speak, but conceals his amusement by giving the impression that he is weeping rather than laughing. (from Wiki review)
That was a brilliant performance by Herbert Lom, I'm laughing here just thinking about it. It's why I have stayed away from the current remakes of the Pink Panther movie series.
And, keeping this on topic, Peter Sellers was a comedian just like Limbaugh, except that Sellers knew he was being funny and did it on purpose.
Lush Bimbo, his kind will never pass this way again....(snicker)
And may his kind pass away soon
"And may his kind pass away soon"-- mary59
I've been looking around on media matters' site and find this kind of post far too often. This seems to embody the type of envy/hate the left feeds off of. Why is that? Beck nor Limbaugh nor Ingraham nor O'Reilly, etc ever say anything like this towards you or anyone else.
that is funny, a drunkard in recovery praising a drug addict for honesty. only in america.
Ol' Fathead is "Person of the Century."
Who better to tell us about the greatness of Ol' Fathead than Glenn Beck? It's like having Adolph Hitler tell us about the greatness of Attila the Hun.
I too have found numerous examples of falsehoods, misleading commentary and smears issuing from Barak Obam ... Oh! Wrong guy? You were talking about Rush Limbaugh?!?!?!? Of dear! I could have sworn that was a description of our current President being praised by Ted Kennedy. Well excuse me. I'll just take my dishonest 15 point IQ and slink back to the stone-age rock I crawled out from under. You enlightened ones just go ahead with your conversation. I think you were praising each other's ability to make really profound statements.
So, you have an IQ of 15. Don't despair...
This puts you in the upper 20 percentile of conservatives. Even Rush Limbaugh has admitted to an IQ of only 19. Pat Robertson is 8.567%.
I'm sure that you could provide us with actual quotations, in context, of the "smears" that OBama has been throwing around that you speak of right? And falsehoods? How about, you know, providing some proof of such things. Nice of you to drag Kennedy into this as well. I swear, typical conservative reaction to just about anything is to call Obama a liar, and say something disparaging about Ted Kennedy, or Al Gore.
Enlightenment has nothing to do with being a conservative or a progressive. Nothing at all. It's how you espouse your opinions and beliefs, and you my friend, fail miserably by repeating talking points, and or the same attacks that have been coming from your side for quite some time. It's pathetically funny.
Biggest series of smears:
Complaints about GW Bush and deficits. See: blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures
Biggest falsehood:
5-day posting of bills on his website prior to signing them. See:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/02/obamas_fiveday_rule_broken_aga.html
From the Heritige foundation and someplace called swamp politics??? You are joking right?
Actually it's true that the 5-day sunshine thing hasn't happened yet:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/234/allow-five-days-of-public-comment-before-signing-b/
But, dude? THAT's your "biggest falsehood?" Me, I'd go with any of the 12 times President Bush asserted an Iraq - al Qaeda link prior to our invasion of Iraq over a campaign promise to allow five days of public comment on bills that hasn't happened yet.
As for the Heritage Foundation link, so? Throughout most of G.W. Bush's terms, deficits were added via an unnecessary war and an unnecessary tax break for the very richest. The projections for Obama's two terms are for a time when the economy is in a ditch, and most economists agree government deficit spending is a necessary evil. Apples to Oranges.
Look, I'm not saying I'm especially fond of the Leadbetter law being signed without 5 days of public comment, or of the U.S. taking on debt. What I am saying is, "Seriously? is that what you're whining about?"
not only did bush lie about iraq and al qaeda, he has consistently claimed to this day that we had to invade because saddam "wouldn't let the inspectors in". and it's a lie that the media refused to call him on. they were there doing their jobs and finding nothing, and it was because of bush telling the u.n. we were going to invade that they were pulled out.
as for rush's "honesty", this guy lied continually about his drug use. he was going to different doctors to get oxycontin and not telling the others he already had prescriptions. [and yes he was convicted, because he had to go to treatment and undergo drug tests for 18 months as part of the legal settlement.] and when rush went deaf, that was before the drug use had been revealed, and he presented it as some mysterious auto immune disease that his doctors just couldn't figure out. then it comes out that he was probably taking the oxycontin by the handful and that just happens to be a side effect of abusing that. mystery solved.
i agree about deficit spending, but it seems to me the only time we've been realistic about it was the clinton administration. no one mentions when we ran surpluses that we still had trillions in debt. apparently the surpluses belonged to the taxpayers, as bush said, but the long term debt only belongs to future generations.
Oh goody, missourishowme, the Heritage Foundation and the Swamp. Bet they know how to lie with stats like pros!
Back to Limbaugh--How do you make Rush Limbaugh's eyes twinkle? A-shine a flashlight in his ear.
Aw, shucks, Mary, I did not think anyone woujld remember me!
If you click through to the Heritage report, they obtained it from the Washington Post, who in turn got if from the two government sources cited. So agrue with them if you want.
Regading the swamp cite, that was the first one I found that listed two disregards by Obama of that campaign promise--there are numerous recordings of them elsewhere.
Well I gotta say, that's politics. Nowhere in the portfolio of election campaigns are you going to find every promise fulfilled, esp regarding money. But I do have more confidence in Obama that he will do his best to bring more fiscal responsibility than BushCo did.
If Obama promised 5 days and had only posted 3 days, that would be the normal breaking of a campaign promise. But posting after signing is taking a promise and stomping on it!
I like sunshine too. That's why pressure on Obama and the legislators by us, we the people, is so important.
Complaints about GW Bush and deficits.
George Bush's deficits were voluntary. He chose to go to war when we shouldn't have. He chose to offer huge tax cuts when we should have used that excess money to pay down the national debt. He chose to continue those tax cuts and get additional ones passed even after 9/11 and a recession! He chose to pay spending increase after increase, never vetoeing a spending bill from Congress in 8 years.
Bush squandered a budget surplus. Obama, on the other hand, has stated that he will try very hard to cut spending wherever possible, and he only passed the stimulus bill to keep us from going into a depression! He didn't have a choice.
So, your comment that GW Bush is being smeared about deficits is actually a strawman argument and a smear against Obama! Get a clue.
Actually, W. did veto many spedning bills. It's just that he just didn't discover his "inner-fiscal conservative' unitil the Domocrats took back control of the Congress. He didn't veto any REPUIBLICAN spending bills in the first SIX years. (And notice how the economy started to tank as soon as soon as he started vetoing spending bills?!)
"I will take public campaign financing"
"I won't have lobbyists in my administration"
"I will have an ethical Administration" (Geithner, Stiller, Daschle)
"I will work across the isle."
"I will bring America together and stop the partisan bickering."
Want more?
1WRONG I know how the rightwing screechmonkesy reported it but what he actually said was
"If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
The Obama campaign has
assertedthat representatives met with McCain advisers in an unsuccessful attempt to pursue an agreement on public financing for the election.
2 I will give you that one.
3 Not even close the fact he has people in the administration you dont like doesnt make it unethical. Get back to us when you can show some actual ethics violations.
4 He tried. The GOP has decided to put their bets on obstruction. Contrary to what the rightwing thinks bipartisanship doesnt mean he must bow down to all their previously stated positions.
5 He has tried and is trying if he wasnt trying we would have had a special prosecuter after Bush and Cheney on day two
Well so far you are one for five
15 IQ points? I think you are being generous to yourself. If you dont have anything to offer about the topic I for one am not interested in your silly look over there trollturds.
Typical conservative. Doesn't even recognize the inherent contradiction in what he says. So... assuming that you think that Ted Kennedy could not possibly give an objective (non-pandering) review of Barack Obama (and to be honest, I think you're right on that point, for better or worse) then by the same logic (you know... actual logic as opposed to conserva-logic) you are admitting that Glenn Beck would have to be shamelessLY pandering in the same vein, and that Rush is in fact a dishonest, inconsistant bafoon with little or no insight, and who is NOT deserving of his listener's trust.
Glad to see we agree on THAT as well.
All good bombthowing rightwing talk show hosts owe their livelihood and any spec of relevance they have to the almighty one, Rush Limbaugh. He commands the most listeners in this genre', he is the king of this slash and burn screechy type of talk radio. So they, including Beck, are forced to make nice with Limbaugh and toss rose petals ahead of his stroll. They don't want to get on his bad side, and they know it.
So they write a glowing piece, or speak of him with fawning praise knowing he may throw them a bone by mentioning them at some point. It's not hard to figure, this Time piece is just Beck stroking the master's ego.
Beck and Limbaugh, what a match made in heaven. good post.
Well Limpy was certainly influential this year. Just witness all the Republicans who, to use one of his favourite expressions, bent over and grabbed their ankles for him. But honest? I think I know where Beck is coming from on this although I disagree. To people like Beck it's just being honest to say liberals hate America, liberals only voted for Obama because he's black, woman's lib is just for ugly women, etc. In their minds they say the things others are afraid to say. In reality others aren't afraid to say those things. They just don't say them because they're a crock of sh*t and only a mindless moron would believe them.
Well compared to YOU my gym socks have a high IQ. I guess its relative.
What do you call a zit on Limbaugh's *ss?
A: A brain tumor.
That was a good one
Keep em' coming...Too funny!
OMG she called a butch lesbian a boy! Zing! Good one. Where do these wingnuts get their sophisticated wit?
"and boy maddow"
Hmmm, your handle indicates that you're a female Marine. Yet, you refer to "boy maddow". Hello, Mr. Pot, meet Ms. Kettle.
I have no idea why you append "usmc" to your username, but as an eighth generation serviceman (my family has fought in every war (but Spanish_American) from Revolutionary on (yep: both sides in Civil War (OH and VA)), I know you have nothing to do with serious Marines. You must stop libeling the USMC by association with your false claims/names. Asshat.
I have a question: if rush limbaugh is considered by Time magazine to be 'influential', then why have Republicans lost so many seats in the House and the Senate, and lost the White House in an electoral landslide, and otherwise have lost so much political capital with the American People, as to be politically marginalized, even worse than just sidelined, they're suffering defections...
What kind of 'influence' is Time magazine thinking of here?
If what they mean by 'influence' is 'destructive influence', well I won't argue that rush limbaugh is a destructive influence on the Republican Party nationally (I'd rather argue that he's irrelevant), but wouldn't 'destructive influence' at least be in accord with the facts and evidence, of a nearly destroyed Republican Party?
I fail to see exactly what influence is being referred to here: and if it's a destructive influence we're talking about, then OK, the facts and evidence support that description: and as for 'irrelevant' (which is how I'd describe rush limbaugh), well that word is pretty much the antonym of 'influential', I think.
Dem, again you nailed it. What criteria does Time use? The fact that the 28 percenters are still willing to bow down to the clown. He has no influence, he's lost the last two major election cycles, but Time capitulates as if he still matters. Time....out!
Rush Limbaugh is a great man. He has done a fantastic job at strengthening the American progressive agenda and marginalizing the hard right that has taken control of the Republican party. Very shortly, the Republican party will be unable to compete in senate or national elections outside of a small core of about 145-170 electoral votes. The whole country owes Mr. Limbaugh a debt of gratitude. He has performed a hard and distasteful job with great gusto. Is it any wonder that he has at times shown that he is only human and bent under the pressure?
Good point, Irked. Rush's dishonesty and stupidity may have been a majoe factor in saving this country from trying to survive another GOP mis-administration.
* this post may not show up, as some freedom-hating conservatives had their feelings hurt and reported me to MMFA hurt-feelings-police.
Rush this headline: Chicken hawks squawk over Colonel Sanders' posts, which ruffled their feathers. Keep egging them on, and may God bless the U.S. of A.
oddly enough, and i hate to say this, but your right......in a way we do ow rush for this......
Yeah...Rash Bimbo is influential with idiots. Honesty?
HaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's a good one!!
erp.
It's breathtaking to consider the decline in the quality and credibility of Time Magazine in recent years. This once higher-minded publication is now carrying a highly dispassionate analysis of Rush Limbaugh by Glenn Beck.
What's next? How about a profile of Karl Rove by G.W. Bush?
they probably figure that they're going to appeal to the limbaugh followers. but i would doubt those people really read time. the problem is that they give up the credibilty they have among the people with half a brain. and by that i don't mean liberals only. i don't even object to the portrayal of limbaugh as influential. he is, but that doesn't mean he deserves beck's behind kissing in this magazine.
Oh, for crying out loud! Granted, there is little overlap between readers of Time and those of NYRB (eg), but do you not think it takes very little sophistication for the average reader to recognize such pure BS log-rolling as FNC's Beck on his benefactor Limbaugh? Puh-leese, MM, you provide a hugely valuable and educational service, but dilute its (a) importance and (b) credibility itself when you overreact and pick or (I am so sorry to see more often lately) exaggerate nits.
Oh, for crying out loud! Granted, there is little overlap between readers of Time and those of NYRB (eg), but do you not think it takes very little sophistication for the average reader to recognize such pure BS log-rolling as FNC's Beck on his benefactor Limbaugh? Puh-leese, MM, you provide a hugely valuable and educational service, but dilute its (a) importance and (b) credibility itself when you overreact and pick or (I am so sorry to see more often lately) exaggerate nits.
another newbie who is so concerned that mmfa is giving up their "crediblity" by posting a perfectly accurate analysis. [and with the touching message that this is happening "more often lately.]
i would like a list of Limbaugh lies-you know like his not doing drugs or his never using Federal support--just the outright lies not smearsand goofy stuff like michelle backman.
I do not know how Time came up with its list and why they decided on the categories they did. But to single out Limbaugh (and also Beck) for "falsehoods, misleading commentary and smears" is a bit disningenuous. There are others on Time's Top 100 who could be accused of the same; after all, there are some notable politicians on the list. Is each one of them a paragon of virtue who has never uttered a falsehood or said misleading things? Please...
Regardless of your thoughts about Rush Limbaugh, he is first and foremost an entertainer and nothing more. Beck started off with this: "For some of us, being a media personality just isn't as easy as it used to be." He recognizes Limbaugh as "media personality" and not the voice of the Republican Party. Limbaugh was not influenetial enough to prevent McCain from getting the Republican nomination nor keep Barack Obama from becoming President. His flamboyance in the context of his radio show is a matter of personal style; it does not affect the validity of anything he says.
But Glenn Beck had some other comments about Rush in the Time article that are more to the point about his inclusion in the Top 100. Beck stated, "He (Rush) attracts more listeners with just his voice than the rest of us could ever imagine. He is simply on another level". Is there any other radio personality that even comes close to his audience numbers? How about on TV, whether cale or broadcast? The answer is most assuredly "no".
Also from Beck's comments: "And that is why the more irrelevant critics try to make him, the more relevant he becomes". How many times has MMFA or others in the media or politics have tried to marginalize him? How successful have they been over twenty years? The same holds true when conservatives try to attack someone like Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton; their popularity really never diminishes.
Beck also said, "To say he has set the standard for success in broadcasting would truly be an understatement". Very true. Like it or not, Limbaugh has single-handedly made talk radio into the commercial success it is today. If there was a liberal talk show host as influential as Limbaugh, there would not be this big a fuss.
so who is arguing whether limbaugh has been successful? it's incorrect to say he's become more "relevant". whether he's being ignored or not, the same dittoheads are going to be listening. but he should not be allowed to get away with the deliberate distortions he makes. and his hypocrisy on the subject of drug addiction should be pointed out. the question here is whether rush is honest. all your other points are just a bunch of smoke.
so who is arguing whether limbaugh has been successful?
No one is arguing about whether he is successful or not. The fact is that Beck's statement was correct, and that very success makes him a target, especially of the left. If he wasn't successful then why all the effort to marginalize him? Even the White House has become involved recently.
it's incorrect to say he's become more "relevant".
That is merely a matter of opinion; in this case it is Beck's opinion. I merely bring up that many people and organizations in the past have tried to marginalize him, yet he is still around and still commands a large audience. You can choose to disagree if you want to.
whether he's being ignored or not, the same dittoheads are going to be listening.
That same logic applies to every other talking head who has an audience regardless of ideological persuasion.
but he should not be allowed to get away with the deliberate distortions he makes.
He can say whatever he wants to; that's part of the beauty of the First Amendment. That same freedom allows you to disagree with him in a public forum. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean he can't say what he wants. Are you implying that every other media personality and politician always tell the truth, or just the ones you agree with?
and his hypocrisy on the subject of drug addiction should be pointed out.
Of course he's a hypocrite when it comes to drug use. I was not defending that point.
the question here is whether rush is honest. all your other points are just a bunch of smoke.
I covered that in my first paragraph. Of course Rush isn't honest, but by my standard "honest" means you have never lied, mistated, distorted or omitted facts. By that standard I doubt any of us are truly "honest". And I don't believe that any part of my post defended Rush for being "honest" - the hypocrisy is when his critics bring that up and don't concede their own shortcomings in that same department. Thank you very much for your reply!
you seem to be saying that the only reason rush is a "target" is because he is successful. maybe it's because he is also frequently a liar. and whether rush is ignored or not, he's still going to say the same things and still going to have the same people listening. if you can reach some of those people by pointing out the falsehoods he spews, then it's worth it. you suggest he will have less influence if he is ignored, but the evidence suggests otherwise. he can say what he wants and he can be called on it. i never said he can't say what he wants. and your argument is "everybody does it" so therefore rush is no more guilty than anyone else. by that standard, no one gets criticized.
I am sure a lot of brainwashed Limborg do troll
So you openly admit that you would rather listen to proven liars than fact-check. And you think that this reflects well on you?
Okay, I counted to ten. A whole bunch of times. You are entitled to your opinion, mefirst, and I would not criticize it on its merits. Nevertheless, you'd be wiser to consider facts before labeling others. I recall when YOU first appeared. Years--no exaggeration--after I was supporting Media Matters. "Newbie" my tuches. And thus: my fear that the new nit-picking does indeed dilute badly the impact we could have. SHOULD have. ("Factually correct" does not equal important or illuminating--we can persuade and educate or we can sit and bitch to ourselves. Get it?)
So, one: you are demonstrably incorrect in your indignation; and two: it makes your sarcasm (which is always embarrassing to serious thinkers/debaters) even more silly on its face (ie: your "touching" snark).
So sorry you represent the current state of MM. The "new" MM and "new" K Olbermann seem to be in an unhappy race to the FOX News bottom. And it makes me sad.
I'd like to see David Brock's opinion on the crrent MM drift. I believe MM's initial mission was education and pointing-out to the general public the base nonsense being vomited by the right. As noted supra: we are becoming a group that enjoys bitching among ourselves--which has its merits, but does not educate. Your choice, mefirst.
my choice? gosh, thanks. my choice would be to point out your bogus comparison between this site and fox news. what you claim is the "unhappy race to the fox news bottom". since you seem to admit that this criticism of beckand limbaugh is "factually correct", then what brings your comparison to fox news? surely you don't claim that fox is factually correct? not that they are wrong always but too much of what they provide depends on distorting the facts. you may have been on here before, i don't remember you, but your post is nothing new: a long time "supporter" who sorrowfully notes that mmfa just isn't what it used to be. by the way, i've been on this site almost since the beginning. but that is neither here nor there. you're complaining that this "does not educate", but there is a lenghty list of limbaugh's falsehoods. why you have an objection to that, and why that brings a comparison to fox news from you, is something you have to explain.
Wow, so much hate on this site. Amazing and troubling at the same time.