Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh’s Ego Is Fatter Than He Is

Posted by on February 19, 2009 at 12:22 am. 5 Comments :

President Barack Obama reiterated today that he is does not support the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. He said so previously, during the campaign, and has been consistent in this regard. That hasn’t stopped the hysterical ranting of rightist fear mongers who seek to use the issue to stir panic amongst the peasants, and to shake them down for contributions.

There are even reports of clandestine meetings between mysterious plotters in Congress and the FCC. The purpose of these cabals is to impose the evil specter of fairness on America. Never mind that the alleged FCC and congressional participants flatly denied that any such meetings took place – and, of course, that the President wouldn’t sanction it anyway.

It is, however, no longer sufficient for one to unequivocally state opposition to the Doctrine. The anti-Fairness fanatics now insist that such proclamations are simply not to be believed. The plotters are purposefully prevaricating to permit them to proceed with their plot. What’s more, they contend, without any evidence, that the threat now extends to cable TV and the Internet, mediums for which the Doctrine never applied. None of these accusations are supported by facts – or reality – they are just regurgitated repeatedly by right-wing conspiracy theorists.

At the top of that heap is Rush Limbaugh. On his radio program today, he rambled through all of the usual delusional blather about the Fairness Doctrine, but strayed into territory even further from sanity. He now says that ACORN is “gearing up to enforce the same type of restrictions on broadcasting that the Fairness Doctrine would require.” He doesn’t bother to explain when ACORN got into the media business. I guess they are just a proxy for anything these braying asses feel like wailing on. After falsely accusing ACORN of voter fraud, and blaming them for the mortgage meltdown, and asserting that they are behind the return of the Fairness Doctrine, I expect the next startling revelation will be their membership in Al Qaeda (A-Qaorn?).

But Limbaugh is not off the crazy train yet. In a grand feat of self-obsessed paranoia, Limbaugh imagines that his thoughts on the Fairness Doctrine are being stolen:

“The Wall Street Journal, two days ago, asked me for an op-ed on this. I submitted the op-ed this morning. It is an open letter to President Obama asking for clarity and definitive answer on — on censorship of the media. Now, I’m wondering. I am just wondering if somebody along the line did not leak my op-ed and the White House heard of it coming and they want to preempt its publication.”

That’s the Wall Street Journal – Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda rag – that Limbaugh is accusing of sabotaging his op-ed.

“And outta nowhere, out of nowhere, on Fox, some spokesman says Obama’s not even considering it? Why now? I mean that didn’t come up at the housing meeting today. It didn’t come up in Denver yesterday. It hasn’t come up on Air Force One. Where did it come up from? I didn’t tell anyone. I mean, I told, you know, a couple friends that I was going to write this thing. It’s fascinating stuff going on there. The intrigue, ladies and gentlemen.”

That’s Fox News – Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda cable net – that Limbaugh is accusing of invading his mind.

The only problem with this exhibition of ego gone wild is that the issue of the Fairness Doctrine has been coming up for weeks. It has been written about in numerous conservative publications and web sites (see Human Events and World Net Daily). Robert Gibbs, the President’s Press Secretary, has taken questions about it in White House briefings – TWICE. It seems to be the most talked about issue in the media other than the Stimulus Bill. Just ask Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and even Rush Limbaugh. Yet Limbaugh says that it hasn’t come up, and some unseen enemy with access to his dementia is leaking his brain droppings to Fox News and the White House. The dark forces are descending upon him even as he laments that he must refrain from speaking it aloud:

“I’m reluctant to talk about this, because I don’t want to sound like a victim. I don’t want to sound like, ‘They’re coming after me! They’re coming after me! (crying).’ But they’re going after any area there is dissent.”

For a guy who doesn’t want to sound like a victim, he sure seems to be focusing a lot on how the world is conspiring against him.

The New Face Of The Republican Party

Posted by on February 4, 2009 at 2:03 pm. 1 Comments :

It is now all of two weeks into the administration of Barack Obama, and already the media is heralding the end of the honeymoon. Considering that on the day of the inauguration, Chris Wallace of Fox News suggested that Obama wasn’t actually president at all because of the mis-articulation of Chief Justice Roberts during the oath, I’m not certain that the honeymoon didn’t end before it ever began.

The failure of the Obama presidency should be welcome news to some of his critics. Rush Limbaugh confessed to hoping for such an outcome. That admission created something of a stir, but the result seems to be that Limbaugh has emerged as the new leader of the Republican Party. He has taken his place at the top of the Party’s hierarchy and even allows members of Congress an audience wherein they can profess their allegiance and kiss his ass ring.

Obama recently told a gathering of Congress critters that “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” Obama was criticized by some Democrats because these remarks just serve to elevate Limbaugh by taking him on. I agree with that analysis, but not that it deserves criticism. It can only help Democrats to elevate Limbaugh and make him the logo of the Republican brand.

The rest of the field isn’t much better than Limbaugh. Sarah Palin still pokes her perky head up every few days to keep her name in the news. And Joe the Plumber … er … journalist … er … political strategist just seems to keep finding new ways to embarrass himself and the Party he has come to represent.

GOP alums aren’t helping either. George Bush has moved into Dick Cheney’s secret, undisclosed location and has not been seen or heard since just after Obama’s inauguration (on second thought, maybe that’s how he’s helping). Cheney, on the other hand, has emerged from his lair wearing a sandwich board that says “REPENT! The end is NEAR!”

And, as always, Fox News remains the Public Relations arm of the Republican Party. Glenn Beck has arrived and is settling in comfortably with daily derision directed at Obama and his still forming team. Bill O’Reilly has declared war on the New York Times, presumably because he can’t keep waging his war on Christmas in February – and he must have a war raging at all times. And Chris Wallace, given a brief ten minutes with the President, uses part of it to ask if he is too thin-skinned because he told a joke about Fox News. Obama responded by stating the obvious:

“I think it’s fair to say that I don’t always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but that’s part of how a democracy is supposed to work. We’re not all supposed to be in lock step here.”

The rightist echo chamber has already seized on these remarks asserting that Obama has insinuated that all of the media, other than Fox News, are in lock-step with the White House. Of course that is not what he said at all, and just watching the various news networks would reveal how shallow that analysis is. What is inescapable is the fact that Fox alone has a lock-step ideology. Despite false claims of liberal bias, other networks have much more diverse programming and personalities. CNN has Lou Dobbs, MSNBC has Joe Scarborough.

Only Fox has a 100% ideologically pure schedule. And it is Fox that is home to the Limbaughs, Palins, Wurzlebachers, Becks, Hannitys, O’Reillys, etc., who, due to the absence of real political leadership, are the new faces of the Republican Party.

Even More Right-Wing Stupidity On The Fairness Doctrine

Posted by on January 18, 2009 at 12:13 am. NO Comments :

I’m getting a little tired of writing these responses to the paranoid rightist Chicken Littles who persistently pretend to be aghast at the prospect of the return of the Fairness Doctrine. I mean, how many ways can you say that it isn’t going to happen? There is no legislation being drafted. There are no hearings being held. There are no advocates speechifying on it. There are no agencies studying it. And yet every conservative blowhard with a pen or a microphone is fretting about it and attempting to incite panic (and donations) amongst their followers.

Now Jed Babbin and Rowan Scarborough at Human Events have aggregated what may be the most comprehensive collection of inane and fallacious griping related to the matter. Here I will respond point by point in the hopes of settling the issue once and for all (yeah, right).

1) “Conservative talk radio is the most potent political weapon in America.”
That’s why it was so successful in turning back Barack Obama and the wave of Democrats cresting over Congress. That’s why President Bush will leave office with such a high approval rating. That’s why Americans overwhelmingly prefer the Republican agenda over the Democrats’. Oh, wait…..reverse that. Contrary to being a “potent political weapon,” conservative talk radio is more like soggy, day-old pasta.

2) “Liberal talk radio has been a huge failure.”
Don’t tell that to Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, Bill Press, Rachel Maddow, etc. They are top performers in many of the markets in which they play. The rightist mantra about radio’s alleged rejection of liberals is based on the tale of Air America’s financial woes. What they don’t tell you is that Fox News lost $80-90 million a year for its first five years. They were fortunate to have Rupert Murdoch’s deep pockets to keep them out of bankruptcy. Air America is still not five years old. And they won’t talk about failures either, including John Gibson, Michael Reagan, and Bill O’Reilly who just ditched his struggling radio show.

3) “[T]he liberal control of both sides of Capitol Hill, along with a compliant Obama Administration, may bring [the Fairness Doctrine] back…”
As noted above, no side of Congress is planning any such thing. And on what basis are they alleging that Obama’s administration will be “compliant” toward Congress?

4) “The Censorship Doctrine would require conservative talk radio to spend a large part of its time praising liberals and their ideas […] Can you imagine what talk radio would sound like if every time a host talked about the newest liberal outrage, he then had to give the liberals equal time?”
Now they’re just making stuff up. There has never been a provision of the Fairness Doctrine that mandated any party “praise” any other party. And “equal time” was never a part of the Fairness Doctrine. Do these guys have even an inkling of understanding of the subjects about which they’re writing?

5) “Liberals now control the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, providing the political left its most absolute hold on power since the 1960s.”
Or the 1990’s, when Democrats held all three branches. Babbin and company were only 30 years off.

6) “Other than the Supreme Court, there’s nothing to prevent them from trying to attach the same rules to other media, including cable television and the Internet.”
That’s like saying that other than gravity there is nothing preventing you floating off into space. Plus, the Fairness Doctrine has never applied to anything but publicly owned and scarce assets like broadcast spectrum. Thus, cable and the Internet would never have been subject to its jurisdiction. Later in this article they claim that the FCC will expand the Doctrine to include Network Neutrality. That doesn’t even make sense since Network Neutrality is about open access to the Internet and has nothing to do with content. This is the right’s way of paying off the big Telecom corporations who benefit from closed systems from which they can gouge both web businesses and consumers.

7) “What left-wing blogger would not like to see Rush Limbaugh led await [sic] in handcuffs from his Palm Beach, Fla., estate for failing to present balanced programming?”
Wasn’t Rush Limbaugh already led away in handcuffs from his Palm Beach, Fla., estate for drug possession and forcing his housekeeper to purchase his contraband? I must admit, that was great to see. However, Babbin and Scarborough are once again showing their ignorance by suggesting that violations of the Fairness Doctrine were ever criminal offenses that would lead to arrest. In fact, the Doctrine was never codified into law at all. It was a regulatory statute and the worst that could happen to a violator was a fine or license review.

8) “The problem is that Limbaugh has a sense of humor. Liberals don’t.”
That’s why Jon Stewart is so reviled and Dennis Miller is so adored. Seriously, did any of these dolts ever see the abominable Half-Hour News Hour on Fox News? The problem is that conservatives actually regard Limbaugh and Ann Coulter as comedians, but everyone else considers them clowns.

The lies scattered throughout this column are typical of the ethical vacuum from which the right operates. They have no shame when it comes to propagating falsehoods for their greedy self-interest. In one particularly abhorrent instance they claim that former Sen. Tom Daschle got overheated because Limbaugh called him an “obstructionist.” That truth, ignored by these authors, is that Limbaugh also called him a traitor and routinely referred to him as the devil. Dashchle’s alleged anger was actually just an admonition that that sort of shrill rhetoric has the potential to incite people to act out violently. And on this issue Dashcle can speak with authority. He was, you may recall, the target of a terrorist Anthrax attack in the days following 9/11. But Babbin and Scarborough can’t be bothered with insignificant facts like that. Just as they can’t be bothered to display some sensitivity to a victim of an attack that infected 22 people and killed five.

As much as I would like for this to be the last time I have to shoot down fraudulent fulminations such as this, I expect that there will be more forthcoming. The Babbins and Scarboroughs of the world have so little upon which to base their ranting, they will cling to non-issues like these until their readers eyes have nothing left to bleed. And they will lie with abandon because they regard the truth as just an impediment to their propagandizing.

The Fanatical Fear Of The Fairness Doctrine

Posted by on November 12, 2008 at 3:44 pm. 9 Comments :

Let’s face it – Change is scary. America now has a new President-elect swept to victory on a wave of change. Those on the winning side are anxious to implement a new agenda, but are also wary of the movement being diluted by political cowardice. The losers, however, are struggling to retain their composure as they imagine all variety of horror that awaits.

Speaking of losers, the most notorious amongst them are pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, etc. Their losses are not confined to being on the wrong side of public opinion in the recently concluded election. They are also losing listeners and viewers who are rapidly awakening to the dishonesty and hostility wafting through the conservative media’s airwaves. Fox News, once a runaway leader in cable news networks, is now threatened by upstart MSNBC, who has emerged as a surging second place competitor, and even beats Fox with some frequency. Radio’s problems are much deeper, facing stiffer competition from television and new media.

The response to this changing marketplace, however, is not to retool the product and search for new ways to connect with an audience. The tunnel vision of right-wingers like those at Fox is inhibiting self-awareness and ironically gaining fans amongst liberals who are happy to see them shrinking their own audience. Harold Meyerson at the Washington Post observes what he calls “the Palinization” of the Republican Party:

“During the campaign just completed, you guys focused on Barack Obama’s allegedly Muslim and alien roots and socialist ideology; meanwhile, in the real world, unemployment rose, foreclosures soared and Wall Street went flooey […] And the way your flock sees it, the modifications that Republicans need to make to become competitive again in American politics — acknowledging a need for state intervention to make the economy work, backing off the primitive religiosity, embracing a more tolerant pluralism — amount to nothing less than heresy.”

In a feat of denial, though, the conservative punditry is barreling headlong into a campaign of fear-mongering and frightful tales of censorship. They believe, and hope to persuade others, that Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress are surreptitiously plotting to reinstate the dreaded Fairness Doctrine that their hero, Ronald Reagan, vanquished 20 years ago. Should that happen, they say, their little ideological monopoly of the air will come crashing down. The main problem with their scare tactic is that there is neither substance nor truth in it.

Stephanie Mencimer has nicely summarized the situation for Mother Jones Magazine:

“In 2005, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation to bring back the doctrine. Conservatives dubbed the measure the “Hush Rush” bill. Then last year, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said publicly that he thought the Fairness Doctrine should be revived, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), after noting that talk radio was overwhelmingly conservative, suggested that Congress hold hearings on the political imbalance […] But Hinchey’s bill went nowhere, Feinstein never held hearings, and the issue died down after President Bush in March threatened to veto any attempt to revive the Fairness Doctrine.”

What’s more, Obama has explicitly stated his opposition to the Doctrine on multiple occasions. That hasn’t stopped rightist enterprises like the National Review, the Center for Individual Freedom, and WorldNetDaily from spreading fabricated stories about conservative voices being kicked off the air. The prospect of this happening is not only false, but pointless. As Mencimer notes, the territory allegedly being fought over has been declining in value for years:

“Conservative talk-radio hosts love to position themselves as the victims of liberal media conspiracies, and the Fairness Doctrine gambit certainly fits the bill. But there is little substance behind the overheated rhetoric. Most Democrats have little interest in a big legislative fight over government regulation of the ever-shrinking sphere of broadcast media.”

And Obama recognizes this himself:

“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”

Obama’s position correctly describes the field of battle as encompassing issues of corporate consolidation, diversity, independence, and open access to new media. Let conservatives whine about imaginary assaults on their dying medium. They can have it. And if they want to shiver in the shadows, pretending that rabid liberals are coming after them, that’s their prerogative.

Like I said above – Change is scary. But it is also necessary. The media world is changing whether we like it or not (we like it). If effective media reform is implemented, the problems facing progressives (and conservatives for that matter) will work themselves out. If ownership caps are enforced, more diverse voices will have access to the airwaves. If anti-trust law is enforced, more independence will be exercised by commercial media. Support for network neutrality and public broadcasting will provide opportunities for alternative media.

That’s what reform is about. That’s what change is about. It’s only scary if your melded to outmoded technology and institutions that profit from corporate domination and propaganda minded government agencies.

Progressive Media In The Obama Era

Posted by on November 11, 2008 at 5:20 pm. 1 Comments :

With the election over, prognostications about the new administration of Barack Obama, and the fate of the losers, began in earnest. Almost simultaneously, speculation arose concerning the direction and prospects for the media in general, and the cable news networks in particular. The conventional wisdom (always conventional, rarely wise) is that Fox News will thrive in the role of a voice for the opposition and MSNBC will struggle for lack of drama. This analysis presumes that audiences respond only to conflict and that the Obama victory will put conservatives on edge and liberals to sleep.

There is some merit to this theory, but, us usual, it is too narrowly drawn to be enlightening. If contrarian politics were paramount then Fox would not have flourished during its early years of the Clinton administration, which it opposed, as well as the Bush years that followed, which it embraced. A common misconception about the success of Fox News is that it was driven by its conservative point of view. The only role ideology played was that it funneled all of the right-leaning viewers to one channel, allowing Fox to score higher in Nielsen ratings. The larger truth is that it transformed stodgy news delivery into thrill-inducing combat and soap opera. They created an us-vs-them, hero narrative that feeds on the same zealotry as a religious cult.

The race for president provided ample opportunity for the sort of melodrama upon which the new generation of cable news networks thrive. Fox took full advantage of this promoting, and even creating, friction where it otherwise would not have existed. Who can forget (despite how desperately we try):

  • William Ayers
  • Rev. Jeremiah Wright
  • Samuel “Joe” Wurzelbacher (the Plumber)
  • ACORN
  • Drill, baby drill
  • Elitists
  • Flag pins
  • Muslim Madrassas

The irrelevance of these phony issues is confirmed by how quickly they have vanished from the news scene. The campaign season stirred the pot, but the conclusion of the campaign is not the end of controversy. We are still mired in war, a collapsing economy, a climate crisis, and a multitude of other critical affairs that will define the next four years.

Nevertheless, cable news is going to have to undergo a post-election makeover. Brit Hume has already left the building. Some reports from Fox News insiders suggest that they will be taking a softer approach toward the President-elect (don’t believe it). Keith Olbermann’s Countdown contains segments like “Bushed” and “McCain in the Membrane” that will need to be retired. Political contests will likely play a smaller role in his program and others, and the void will have to be filled by something else. In the search for new themes, I would like to suggest one that is ever-present and exerts an overdue influence on American politics and culture: the Media.

There will always be political, social, and global controversies. They will erupt between and within party affiliations. The one thing that ties them all together is that they are fodder for interpretation by the media. The characterization of ideas can be instrumental in their acceptance or rejection by the people. Ideally, news organizations would be neutral providers of information and analysis, but those days may be long past. The modern era of television news seems to have irreversibly digressed into partisan advocacy. Even Fox News, the home of the “fair and balanced” fallacy, seems to have abandoned that pretense. Chairman and CEO, Roger Ailes was asked by Broadcasting and Cable Magazine about their post-election prospects:

B & C: [W]ill the news side of Fox News face an apathetic audience, compounded by being on the losing end of a national election?

Ailes: There may be certain elements of our audience that turn away between now and the inauguration. I think cable numbers overall will drop, although there is a fascination with Obama.

Notice that Ailes doesn’t object to the question’s premise that Fox was “on the losing end” of the election. The reality of Fox’s bias is so well established now that he doesn’t even bother to refute it. If Ailes’ response isn’t validation enough, listen to his executive VP, John Moody, from the same article, describing Obama as…

“…a once-in-a-lifetime politician and that means he’s smart enough to know that, despite his prescient 2004 speech, there are red voters and blue voters. And he wants to reach out and get the red ones, too.”

Here we have Moody blithely confessing that Fox is the venue for conservative viewers. This is something that Moody and Ailes would have vehemently denied in the past. Today it is treated as a foregone conclusion. That’s what makes observation of the media such a rich vein for the sort of melodrama that excites cable news programmers and viewers. The presentation of the news is so narrowly focused and poorly produced that it invites criticism, sarcasm, and ridicule.

This is where progressive media can excel. The Rupert Murdochs of the world aren’t interested in self-examination or improvement. They have an agenda to pursue and they won’t let a little thing like truth get in the way. Witness the inveterate lying of folks like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity. Liberals are generally more predisposed toward ethical oversight and, thus, make better watchdogs. With the decline of political content in the news cycle, this would be an opportune time to jump headlong into media analysis and criticism.

Scrutiny of the press has the added benefit of expanding the audience base because those who are skeptical of the press are a diverse group. An honest appraisal of reporters and pundits will appeal to a broad swath of news consumers. Evidence of this is the popularity of a couple of programs on Comedy Central. The Daily Show and the Colbert Report demonstrate the appeal of programming that takes on the press. Many analysts misconstrue these shows as political satire, but that is not an accurate characterization. They are media satire programs. Everything they do is less a statement on policy than it is a statement on the absurdity and incompetence of the people who bring us the news. It is also noteworthy that conservative attempts at this endeavor have all failed miserably.

Drawing attention to the media is also fertile ground for effective reform. It is potentially the most powerful avenue for political change. Every issue that faces citizens and their representatives has to be disseminated through the media apparatus. So whether it’s healthcare, education, taxes, energy, etc., it is the press that will shape much of the public’s view. The more light that is cast on the press, the more likely they will modify their behavior. So if cable news figures like Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Campbell Brown, and even Fox’s Shepard Smith (who has been known to take swipes at his net’s coverage), step up and challenge their industry, they could have more impact, and do more good, then if they merely assume the posture of another kvetching pundit.

The next few weeks will tell whether the press has learned anything, whether it is interested in self-reflection and reform, and whether it is capable of fulfilling its traditional role as a check on a government that would much prefer to work in secret. This will also be an outstanding time to have media watchers illuminating the stage and exposing the imperfections and deceits of those who purport to inform us. Let’s hope they heed the call. Because, now more than ever, we need an open, honest, and diverse fourth estate to document the progress of what may be the most astonishing political achievement in this nation’s short history.

Barack Obama’s Victory: A Mandate For…..

Posted by on November 5, 2008 at 9:14 am. 3 Comments :
America’s Barack Stickers and T-Shirts

America Is Back!

History was made on November 4, 2008, when Barack Obama overwhelming won election to become the 44th President of the United States of America. Forty-five long years after Martin Luther King’s iconic “I Have a Dream” speech, the manifestation of that dream has come to pass. The fulfillment of this dream is a declaration that we can come back from the dark days of division that characterized the past eight years, and much of the past two hundred. And it is evidence that the people, when inspired, will rise up to take back their country. Barack Obama is merely the reflection of our own hopes and dreams. We are America, and…

America’s Barack

However, if the media, led by Fox News, is to be believed, then the next administration should provide some surprises. Obama was castigated by John McCain, McCain’s supporters, and the omnipresent rightist press, as a Muslim and a Marxist. His patriotism was challenged. Television anointed experts told us that Obama would raise our taxes and ruin our economy. And this dangerously risky, untested, neophyte, even palled around with terrorists.

But America voted for him anyway. Does that mean that a majority of American voters have just given a mandate to the President-elect for an agenda of Godless Socialism? Rejoice Pagans, for the day has come that the United States has affirmed its commitment to spreading both wealth and heresy.

Either that or the vacant ideologies of limp-brained, bile-spewers like Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc, has been fiercely rejected, repudiated, and denied.

Time will tell.

Will John McCain Renounce This Ugliness?

Posted by on October 14, 2008 at 3:37 pm. NO Comments :

I have been predicting that the last few weeks of this election season was bound to get nasty. I had no idea how bad it was going to get. The McCain/Palin ticket is badly wounded and they know that there is little hope for them to prevail. Consequently, they have nothing to lose by going for Barack Obama’s jugular. That sentiment was articulated verbatim today by Sarah Palin who told Rush Limbaugh that…

“Rush, I’ve got nothing to lose in this and I think America’s got everything to gain by understanding the differences – the contrasts here between Obama and McCain.”

That is why we are seeing more disingenuous attempts to associate Obama with “unrepentant domestic terrorists.” That is why racial epithets and chants of “terrorist” are emanating from McCain/Palin rallies without objection by the candidates. It is why they are now, with the help of Fox News, fomenting distrust of the election process by falsely alleging voter fraud. And it is why the National Enquirer is pushing a disgusting story that has no bearing on this campaign, but has salacious appeal to the repugnant right-wingers who will stoop to any means to achieve their ambitions.

The Enquirer’s “Exclusive” (to which I will not link) is topped with this intentionally misleading headline: “Obama Sex Perv Scandal.” The headline suggests that Obama is a sexual pervert, but that is not what the story is about. The column alleges that Frank Marshall Davis, a friend of the Obama family in Hawaii when Obama was ten years old, authored a pornographic autobiography. The Enquirer further states that…

“The appalling catalog of admitted real-life decadence is laced with perverted sexual activity, bisexuality, rape – and the seduction of children.”

The book, “Sex Rebel: Black,” was published in 1968 and the author was listed as Bob Greene. The Enquirer says that Greene was in fact Davis, but they provided no evidence for the claim. Davis died 20 years ago. There is no way of knowing whether the Enquirer’s assertions are true, but their reputation doesn’t elicit much confidence. It wouldn’t matter anyway. Associating Obama with this venal garbage makes absolutely no sense. He was a child and couldn’t possibly have had any connection to the alleged activity. Clearly, in his personal life, he is the model of a committed husband and father.

For this article to appear so close to the election can only be interpreted as an intentional attempt to tarnish Obama and damage his election prospects. Perversity obsessed rightists, like Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, are already jumping on the story. Expect more of that to come from the conservative media chorus.

The question is, can we expect McCain to renounce this nonsense? A couple of days ago, McCain admonished a supporter for saying that she couldn’t trust Obama because he is “an Arab.” McCain took the microphone from her and said, “No, he is a decent family man and citizen.” Setting aside that McCain just insulted every Arab as not being decent, etc., if McCain really believes what he said about Obama, he will not let a story like this fester and grow with the help of his surrogates.

I hope this story dies an early death, but if it gets a foothold in the press, then reporters need to get a statement from McCain to ascertain if he agrees with the substance of the story or approves of the tactic of retelling it. What’s left of McCain’s honor should make this an easy decision for him, but judging by his behavior so far this election year, it would be folly to presume that he would do the honorable thing. After all, he has nothing to lose.

Don’t Forget Limbaugh’s Threat: Riot In Denver

Posted by on August 18, 2008 at 6:07 pm. NO Comments :

A week from today the Democrats will begin their nominating convention in Denver. This seems like a good time to recall the incitations to violence that were voiced last April by Rush Limbaugh.

The Conventional Media is as consumed today with trivialities as it was four months ago when they virtually ignored Limbaugh’s overt and repulsive call to arms. There is nothing ambiguous about his remarks. They are brazen and obvious, and I re-post them here today in the interest of promoting accountability. I certainly hope that nothing like the nightmare Limbaugh has articulated comes to pass. But should he and his followers succeed with their evil scheme, everyone should know where to lay the blame. [The following was originally published April 25, 2008]

Limbaugh: “Now, I am not inspiring or inciting riots. I’m dreaming. (singing to the tune of White Christmas) I’m dreaming of riots in Denver. Remember 1968?”

Limbaugh says that he isn’t inciting riots, but merely dreaming of them. That distinction is skimpy to say the least. Is he so naive that it has not occurred to him that some portion of his 14 million listeners might be motivated to help him see his dreams come true? Of all the well-deserved criticisms that can be leveled at this ego-bloated pundi-clown, naiveté is not amongst them. He knows the impact of words. He knows his audience. He knows very well the potential consequences of actions.

Limbaugh: “Riots in Denver at the Democrat convention would see to it we don’t elect Democrats – and that’s the best damn thing could happen for this country as far as anything I can think.”

Is it possible to deliberately instigate violence more explicitly than that? The title of this article, “Screw the World! Riot in Denver!” was lifted verbatim from Limbaugh’s web site. That is an unambiguous directive to his listeners who are not called “dittoheads” for nothing. But Limbaugh grants himself somewhat more leeway to engage in hypocrisy. Apparently there are worse things than electing Democrats – i.e. electing John McCain.

Limbaugh: “If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit … rather than a Republican causing the debacle.”

That, however, hasn’t stopped McCain from pursuing Limbaugh’s favor. Just last February Politico reported that, according to Republican sources, McCain sent an emissary to bring Limbaugh into the fold.

The questions for today are: Will McCain denounce and reject Limbaugh’s repugnant and dangerous remarks? Will the media give an equal amount of airtime to Limbaugh’s lunacy as they did to Rev. Wright’s rant? Will Hell freeze over?

It would be too optimistic to entertain the notion that Limbaugh would be fired over this. He makes too much money for his greedy broadcast benefactors. But if Limbaugh doesn’t face some sort of sanction for this, then what would produce a sanction? Would he have to show up in Denver with a trunk full of Molotov cocktails? Would we need a canceled check payable to Outside Agitators, Inc. (a subsidiary of Blackwater)? If there is trouble in Denver, will there be an investigation to ascertain whether the troublemakers were Limb-bots?

There may not be answers to these questions today, but we must not stop asking them. And we must not stop prodding the press to ask as well. And we must not forget to ask them after the convention. If there is trouble in Denver, if blood is spilled, it will be on Limbaugh’s hands.

Updated to add: More comments from Limbaugh advocating violence:

“I mean, if people say what’s your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That’s the objective here.”

Contact Premiere Radio Networks, Limbaugh’s Clear Channel-owned syndicator, and tell them that inciting violence is illegal and unacceptable.

Here’s a link to Limbaugh’s advertisers who might want to reconsider sponsoring a program that advocates violence.

You can also file a complaint with the FCC.

Rush Limbaugh: Screw the World! Riot in Denver!

Posted by on April 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm. 12 Comments :

While the Conventional Media is still consumed with remarks made by Barack Obama’s pastor criticizing America, they are virtually ignoring the comments of Rush Limbaugh that are brazenly advocating violence for political gain.

Limbaugh: “Now, I am not inspiring or inciting riots. I’m dreaming. (singing to the tune of White Christmas) I’m dreaming of riots in Denver. Remember 1968?”

Limbaugh says that he isn’t inciting riots, but merely dreaming of them. That distinction is skimpy to say the least. Is he so naive that it has not occurred to him that some portion of his 14 million listeners might be motivated to help him see his dreams come true? Of all the well-deserved criticisms that can be leveled at this ego-bloated pundi-clown, naiveté is not amongst them. He knows the impact of words. He knows his audience. He knows very well the potential consequences of actions.

Limbaugh: “Riots in Denver at the Democrat convention would see to it we don’t elect Democrats – and that’s the best damn thing could happen for this country as far as anything I can think.”

Is it possible to deliberately instigate violence more explicitly than that? The title of this article, “Screw the World! Riot in Denver!” was lifted verbatim from Limbaugh’s web site. That is an unambiguous directive to his listeners who are not called “dittoheads” for nothing. But Limbaugh grants himself somewhat more leeway to engage in hypocrisy. Apparently there are worse things than electing Democrats – i.e. electing John McCain.

Limbaugh: “If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit … rather than a Republican causing the debacle.”

That, however, hasn’t stopped McCain from pursuing Limbaugh’s favor. Just last February Politico reported that, according to Republican sources, McCain sent an emissary to bring Limbaugh into the fold.

The questions for today are: Will McCain denounce and reject Limbaugh’s repugnant and dangerous remarks? Will the media give an equal amount of airtime to Limbaugh’s lunacy as they did to Rev. Wright’s rant? Will Hell freeze over?

It would be too optimistic to entertain the notion that Limbaugh would be fired over this. He makes too much money for his greedy broadcast benefactors. But if Limbaugh doesn’t face some sort of sanction for this, then what would produce a sanction? Would he have to show up in Denver with a trunk full of Molotov cocktails? Would we need a canceled check payable to Outside Agitators, Inc. (a subsidiary of Blackwater)? If there is trouble in Denver, will there be an investigation to ascertain whether the troublemakers were Limb-bots?

There may not be answers to these questions today, but we must not stop asking them. And we must not stop prodding the press to ask as well. And we must not forget to ask them after the convention. If there is trouble in Denver, if blood is spilled, it will be on Limbaugh’s hands.

Updated to add: More comments from Limbaugh advocating violence:

“I mean, if people say what’s your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That’s the objective here.”

Contact Premiere Radio Networks, Limbaugh’s Clear Channel-owned syndicator, and tell them that inciting violence is illegal and unacceptable.

Here’s a link to Limbaugh’s advertisers who might want to reconsider sponsoring a program that advocates violence.

You can also file a complaint with the FCC.

Partisan Pied Pipers Part Republicans From Reporters

Posted by on February 8, 2008 at 1:09 pm. 4 Comments :

A new Harris Poll was released that purports to identify the most and least favorite news personalities. Harris’ definition of both “news” and “personalities” stretches credulity just by including names like Tucker Carlson. Nonetheless, there are still some interesting results.

Far and away, the consensus loser is Rush Limbaugh who was voted least favorite by 42% of respondents. He was first amongst the least of both Democrats and Independents. Plus, he was even the #3 choice for worst amongst Republicans.

Bill O’Reilly was the favorite choice of 23%. But he was also the least favorite of 23%. His place atop the favorites list was fueled by a block 42% of Republicans who prefer him. That’s about twice the number of any other choice on the list for Democrats or Independents.

This poll, however, tells us something more than the obvious popularity contest drivel. It tells us something about the perception gap between the right and the left with regard to what constitutes news.

The top three choices amongst Republicans are Bill O’Reilly (42%), Rush Limbaugh (28%), and Sean Hannity (27%), none of whom would be described as journalists by neutral observers. They are partisan commentators with well known biases. The top three choices amongst Democrats are Anderson Cooper (22%), Brian Williams (20%), and Charles Gibson (19%), all of whom are bona fide news professionals. They may have biases of their own, but they are also practicing journalists who at least attempt to keep their reporting opinion-free.

Keith Olbermann barely registered in the poll. What’s notable about that is not his standing. He is neither loved nor hated by the poll’s respondents, although there are predictable up/down ticks by party. What’s interesting is the conspicuous absence of anyone else like him on the list. He is the only subject in the study that is remotely progressive. Every other name is either a nonpartisan journalist or a right-winger. This comports with the ideological makeup of the television news community overall. Olbermann stands alone as voice for left-leaning viewers.

In the end, it’s the perception gap that is the most significant insight provided by this poll. When Republicans favor their ideological Pied Pipers over the more reputable Town Criers, you are left with villagers that are less informed, even misinformed, and unable to distinguish fact from fiction (see The Cult of Foxonality). While much in the mediasphere requires reform, it appears that there is an important flank that has been neglected. More work needs to be done to educate news consumers as to what really constitutes news. That does not mean that Republicans need to be re-educated into Democrats (although it wouldn’t…no, never mind). It means that they need to learn to differentiate commentary from journalism. Bill O’Reilly, whether you agree with him or not, is not a journalist. Anderson Cooper, whether you agree with him or not, is not a blathering, egomaniacal, browbeating purveyor of distortions and lies.