I can agree with that. And anyone who gets their only information from talk radio is, at best, intellectually incurious. Maybe I over-reacted. I guess “sheep” is one of my hot buttons.
Now go, and sin no more.
What we need is a hard-nosed, tough, like-him-or-love-him liberal host for such a show.
(OK, fine - I’ll get my communications degree next week! Sheesh!)
Esprix
Chumsky,
It’s all well and good to disagree with Limbaugh. But to say he comes out with nothing every day but “three hours of lies and hate,” (which isn’t true, and that in itself is a hateful lie, Mr. Kettle), but I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who cites Noam Chomsky, a lies and hate purveyor par exellence in his own right.
Chomsky just doesn’t have alot of credibility with most Americans. Which is one reason why Democrat radio shows don’t do well, and why Democrat books don’t do well, while conservative writers (Olson, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter) wind up on the bestseller list.
Now, you can choose to believe this, or you can choose to continue to lose elections.
I certainly don’t think AM radio listeners are mindless. Many of the ones I know are otherwise bright, thoughtful people.
But I do think that the (large) demographic of folks who get their news only from AM radio is being misinformed. Or at least underinformed, since they are only hearing one side of the debate. It’s not hard for the Republicans to win this group over when the Reps are the only ones talking.
Yes, anyone who gets all her news from right-wing talk radio hears only one side of the debate. However, I wonder if that group is as large as you think, spoke-. In New York City, Rush’s show is interrupted by ABC news every hour, so a listener automatically gets some mainstream news that way, even if they don’t get any other news on radio, TV, newspaper, magazine, internet…
I pointed you to an article dealing with several of Limbaugh’s lies. There are many more where that came from. I listen to Limbaugh a few times a week, and every time I listen I hear more and more lies. In fact, I’ll offer you a challenge: present any Limbaugh political writing or transcript of at least 200 words, and I will point out at least one lie. Deal?
Now, perhaps you would like to point out where Chomsky has lied?
I doubt more than 10% of Americans have even heard Chomsky’s name. The same cannot be said of Limbaugh, who has a platform for spreading his views that is unparalleled in human history.
The reason that Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. have a platform to express their views is that they serve private power, but Chomsky does not. If Chomsky’s books had half the distribution and promotion that Limbaugh, et.al. do, he would outsell them 10 to 1. As it is, despite being virtually blacklisted from the mainstream media, Chomsky still manages to get onto the bestseller lists at times, and is by far the most popular political writer in Europe.
It is funny that you would associate Chomsky with the Democrats. This merely shows that you are completely unfamiliar with any of Chomsky’s ideas. Why not check them out?
Chomsky archive
Deal.
Good luck.
ranwashingt wrote:
See, this is what I mean by Democrats not wanting to dirty their hands. That high-mindedness is great in principle, but it means you are ceding a big chunk of the voting public to the Republicans.
I say let’s take them on. If they send one of ours to the hospital, we send one of theirs to the morgue. (Metaphorically, of course.)
And besides, while I understand your sentiment, I don’t think you have to stoop to Limbaugh’s level to do battle with him. There is plenty of Democratic truth to be told in an entertaining and even confrontational way without resorting to Limbaugh’s brand of slander.
A hypothetical Democratic answer to Rush would get listeners, because people love confrontation and conflict. Take a few Republican (preferably ditto-head) callers, give them an on-air thrashing, and watch the ratings climb. IMHO
Now would you be able to get sponsors to stick around? Would you cheese off the station owners? I don’t know the answers to those questions.
Spoke
Can you give some examples of giving the Democrat truth in an entertaining way. How do you entertainingly tell people that they need to assume more, rather than less, responsibility for people other than themselves?
Sure Lib. Here’s an example:
There’s plenty of room to poke fun at Republican efforts to make permanent the repeal of the estate tax and their dreams of eliminating the capital gains tax. The combined effect of these two moves is to place the great bulk of the country’s tax burden on the working middle class. (I’d go into more detail, but I’d need a couple hours’ worth of airtime to explain it all. 
) It would also mean that wealthy folks who inherit their money and who then maintain themselves by playing the stock market would pay no taxes at all, while Joe Lunchbox and Joe Engineer carry the load.
Surely you can see the potential entertainment value of lampooning rich people robbing poor people? (Or more accurately, middle-class people.) I can imagine a Limbaugh-esque riff on the subject with lots of ironic Robin Hood references.
Equally open for a lampooning mixed with serious analysis is the Republican stance (if you can call it that) on environmental issues…
Or Republican efforts to “reach out” to black voters…
Etc., Etc.
"Now, if anybody has hoods and robes hidden away it’s a Democrat in the Senate, Spike. His name is Robert C. Byrd. "
“…here’s Spike Lee on national TV saying that Trent Lott is a card-carrying member of the KKK and everyone, including him, just laughs.”
There ya go: two lies.
“The Reverend Jackson says if Lott would change his policies and become a liberal, he could put this behind him …”
This statement cannot literally be false, since it’s hypothetical; it begins with if.
Nor is it false as reasonably interpreted. It means Byrd has more in common with the KKK than Lott does. This is true, since Byrd was a member of the Klan at one time, but Lott never was.
Did you listen to the sound bites, Chumpsky? In the first one, Rush played a tape of Spike Lee discussing Lott, saying,
At this point on the tape, Spike Lee laughed. This wasn’t Rush’s description; this was a replay of the interview with Robyn Roberts and Lee.
quote:
Originally posted by december
- This essay is 219 words long.
#1 Let me see. He starts off by saying…
“To illustrate, my friends, that these accusations of racism are a one-way street, we have sound bites from Tuesday’s Good Morning America, where film director Spike Lee ranted about Trent Lott with GMA host, Robin Roberts.”
And, then writes in the essay that Spike Lee said things which were wrongly attributed to Lott, and in fact, should be attributed to Byrd.
Did I miss the one-way street here? Is Spike the singular media dictator?
#2: He attacks Jesse’s statements. Fine with me though I do not know enough to pick holes. But then, hidden within that is this:
“In reality, as we covered on Monday’s program, and today’s morning update, it was Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act and implemented affirmative action – and it was the Democrats who were the segregationists.”
Unfortunately, I cannot access Monday’s program but right off the bat this generalization sounds fishy. (We know that a number of Dixiecrats turned Republican… so saying Lincoln is Republican, and Strom Thurmond was a Democrat etc is misleading and a lot of the current controversy is centered around the last 50 years, and even as late as last 10-20 years)
#3. Lesley Stahl faked an interview. BIG DEAL! Let’s talk policies and ideas here, please.
I didn’t say he was a perpetual liar but I do think he does distort information and debates very poorly on key policy issues.
And besides, while I understand your sentiment, I don’t think you have to stoop to Limbaugh’s level to do battle with him. There is plenty of Democratic truth to be told in an entertaining and even confrontational way without resorting to Limbaugh’s brand of slander.
Well at least he’s fat.
Rand...tipping the scales of justice.Huh? Oh, I see, it isn’t an implication that Byrd has robes and hoods in his closet, it is a logical statement like this:
IF 1 senator has robes and hoods in his closet
THEN that senator is Robert Byrd
Is that what you are saying?
Yes, I did listen to the tape. Let me re-quote from Limbaugh, placing emphasis on the lie:
“…here’s Spike Lee on national TV saying that Trent Lott is a card-carrying member of the KKK and everyone, including him, just laughs.”
Jeez, man. After trying to mine a 200 word statement by Limbaugh that was lie-free, that was the best you could come up with?
I’ll go december one further, and say that if you get all of your news from only one source, you are extremely likely to be missing a huge part of the big picture. If you get all of your news from network TV, you get only the distilled sensationalism and liberal talking points. Get it from Rush, and you get only the entertaining right-wing slant. Get it from the NYT, and you get only the hyper-liberal view. There are a few sources that are comparitively unbiased - the Washington Post seems to be one of the better ones - but even unbiased sources are going to miss out on a lot of points of view, and a lot of stories. Anybody who is really that interested in getting a balanced picture will surely try to absorb news from a wide variety of sources.
Speaking anecdotally here, I know of not one person who listens to talk radio who uses that as their sole source of news and views. In fact, those I know who listen to talk radio tend to be particularly rabid in their quest to absorb as many sources as possible.
Jeff
On the tape, Jackson said, Lott might be rehabilitated if
Since this would mean Lott taking liberal positions, Limbaugh characterized this as “becoming a liberal.”
Not only were Limbaugh’s statements accurate, but he actually provided the radio equivalent of cites – i.e., recordings.
Litost, Rush was more-or-less accurate (although exaggerating) in saying, “it was Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act and implemented affirmative action – and it was the Democrats who were the segregationists.” The first Civil Rights Act was supported by a larger % of Reps than Dems. However, many Dems were ardent supporters of the Act.
Amazingly Richard Nixon deserves a lot of the credit (blame?) for affirmative action.
Wrong. Rush went on a big diet a couple of years ago and is no longer fat. You can see his current picture on my cites.
He hardly looks like the same guy anymore, either. I’m still getting used to seeing his non-obese mug plastered hither and yon.
Jeff