Okay, for whoever gives a toot, here’s the Keith Olbermann/Rush Limbaugh observation I mentioned earlier. From The Worst Person in the World, page 33:
Make of that as you will. Not that it makes Limbaugh any less scummy, but there you go.
No, I want people to realize that he’s a deliberate liar. I want people to not believe what he says. The ideologies and sometimes deliberate falsehoods that he represents I wish not to be used as actual facts in arguments by people that believe what he’s saying is true. I want the naive people out there to have a chance to realize the difference between ‘entertainment’ and reality. The people who advertise and promote this guy don’t try very hard to inform people that this rhetoric just might not be rigorously researched fact.
Basically, I just wish that we had easy access to all the facts and that people could use that information to think for themselves. I wish that we didn’t have to be bombarded by people deliberately trying to distract from or obscure the truth.
Maybe, but whether Limbaugh believes what he’s saying, or, as Olbermann suggests, doesn’t and why people listen to Limbaugh are two seperate things. People listen to Limbaugh because they like/agree with what he says and because he’s amusing. I don’t think most of his listeners much care whether he’s hypocritical or not…he’s a talk show host, not a philosopher or spiritual guide or something.
I think Olbermann is right to preceed his name with the word comedian (“Comedian Rush Limbaugh said…”) since much of what Limbaugh says is often ridiculous to the point of being hilarious.
I think there’s a substantial amount of people who listen to him and don’t know any better than to think that what he’s saying has been carefully thought about before it escapes his lips. There ought to be a disclaimer after every return from a commercial break. Something to the effect of “Just because Rush Limbaugh says it, doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s true. Severe loss of respect may result from repeating anything he says and may get you laughed at in any serious political debate.”
Jerry Springer, former mayor of Cincinnati, has found himself in a similar predicament. In a galaxy far, far away, Springer was a well-respected, articulate, moderate politician. A stint as an anchorman led to the Jerry Springer Show. In a bid to keep his ratings up, over time he morphed his show into the circus for the damned and there went his chance of ever being taken seriously again.
I don’t hate Springer; I think he sold out. I don’t hate Limbaugh; I think he sold out. And I don’t begrudge them their shows. Hey, more power to them. But neither have my respect. And one day when they’re old, I think the lack of respect is what will eat at them.
Yeah, but he was caught red-handed paying for nookie. Paying with a personal check. How someone that bone-headed is to be respected is almost beyond comprehension. 
Actually, he ultimately left for Chicago because after five years and a buncha Emmys he wanted to broaden his “final thoughts” at the end of every newscast. Instead, the station pushed back and played a standard Kicker (you know, the “skateboarding guinea pig” story du jour).
I disagree. I think Springer is a demagogue of the most dangerous sort: a popular one. Limbaugh is just an entertainer. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Rush’s publicist set up the whole “Pillgate” to make him look more common.
Contrary to Springer, however, Limbaugh reaps the benefit of the “Fox News Effect”, in that his listeners, for the most part, actually believe everything he says unquestioningly, so he does have the respect of many. Limbaugh is relevent because those who listen to him don’t consider him a comedian, but a knowledgeable pundit who speaks an unvarnished truth only the blind (or a liberal) couldn’t see.
I haven’t listened to Limbaugh in years, but I remember he used to constantly state in his broadcast that “you don’t have to know what to think because I’ll tell you what to think,” or some such sentiment. His listeners have taken that to heart, as evidenced by the word for word regurgitation I used to hear from his fans when arguing their side’s positions.
At least with Springer’s show, you know it’s a circus. No one’s going to watch the fisticuffs after “My sister slept with my boyfriend!” and think, “Yeah, that’s a brilliant thing to do, I gotta shag my brother-in-law!”
You know, if we feel the need to put warnings before TV shows that say, “warning, the following contains scenes of graphic violence” then we really should be morally, ethically, and legally required to put “warning, the following program is fictional and intended for entertainment purposes,” in front of shows like Jerry Springer and Rush Limbaugh.
I know for a fact there are people who believe the people on Jerry Springer really are transvestites sleeping with their brothers & sisters, etc. I know for a fact there are many people who believe Rush Limbaugh is brave enough to speak the real truth, the truth “they” don’t want you to hear, and Limbaugh does tell a great many people what they should think.
Now, if people want to believe Jerry Spinger is good reality TV, let 'em believe it. No harm done. But people who believe Limbaugh go out and vote.
Instead they say to themselves, “Hey, I’ll go shag my brother-in-law and get on the Jerry Springer show!” Sad.
Nonetheless, my point is that both men started out with a degree of respectability and then deteriorated into what they’ve become today. I don’t know what it is about talk shows but it seems to turn normal people into raving lunatics. Witness what happened to Bill O’Reilly or Dr. Laura. Heck, by the time she was run off mainstream radio she had turned into a humorless hag.
Funny, I thought Dr. Laura was born a humorless hag.
You’re not a demagogue unless you’re trying to lead the people somewhere. Rush is, Springer isn’t.