Why does Rush Limbaugh, when deconstructing an interview between two other parties, only play the tape of one person speaking? For example, say he’s deconstructing an interview between Katie Couric and Donald Rumsfeld. Rush will say something like this:
“Katie Couric asks Donald Rumsfeld, ‘Secretary Rumsfeld, what do you believe will be the dominant colors in lipstick and eye shadow this fall?’ Here’s how Rumsfeld responds.” [plays tape of Rumsfeld speaking]
You’ll notice that he repeats what Katie Couric says, but then plays the tape of Rumsfeld speaking, but he doesn’t play the tape of both parties speaking. Is there a reason for this? Does it violate Fair Use principles? Or is this just Rush’s personal style?
My own broadcasting experience tells me that he probably doesn’t have tape of Couric speaking. Rumsfeld’s responses to the interview questions were fed down a network and carted up by Rush’s producers, then handed to him with a cue sheet describing what questions were asked.
This is pretty common in radio – as an example, when I was working at a sports-talk station, AP Network Sports used to provide three overnight feeds of clips fed up by their stringers. You’d tape the feed, then print out the cue sheet, and cart them up for the air talent.
Even if he did have the complete tape, there are several reasons why he wouldn’t play Couric’s questions. One is that Couric is perceived as a liberal, and Rush wouldn’t want to give her air time on his show, even in prerecorded form. After all, it’s the Rush Limbaugh show, not the Katie Couric show.
No. The question is important. For instance, Strom Thurmond answers: “I think who a person marries is their own business.” It makes a difference if the question was: “Would you let your daughter marry a black man, Senator?” or “How does it feel to be married to a woman who is 35 years younger than you?”
Some years ago, I aired a Strom Thurmond clip in which question A was alleged to have occurred–but when I got a full tape of the interview, he had answered Question B.
On a larger scale, the answer to Original Poster’s question is: why would Rush Limbaugh worry about presenting a full and accurate report of any public event or occurrence? THAT would be completely out of character for the man.
They do it in the news too where the anchor will recite the question and part of the answer and then you just see the person say a brief sound bite. I think the main reason is to make things go faster but, I agree, I’d rather see the whole thing.
Pam has a point, especuially considering that we’re talking about Rush, but I tend to think it’s because one person (in the example, Rumsfeld) is “on mike” and the other person (Kouric, in the example) may be out in the audience or otherwise not well “miked”. This assumes a press-conference situation.
In an interview situation (one-on-one), it also can be because the question responded to included transitional material from a preceding question or answer, and to include it would require running too much of the original interview.
Not that important because if Rush changed the question to make it appear that the person is answering something else the media would be all over him. He would never get away with something like that.
This may be getting into Great Debates, but I have doubts about whether Mr. Limbaugh would be very concerned about giving an inaccurate view of a person’s answer in the case of someone he doesn’t like, or, given his history, whether people would take particular note of it. For years he has been making up answers that people supposedly would say to hypothetical questions, or tells us what the person was “really thinking”, in order to make them look bad. Almost never are these people ever given a chance to actually give their own statements about their own opinions.
You can’t be even remotely serious. Rush has been getting away with something like that his entire career. In fact, his entire career is based around that very premise.
Keep in mind that this is a man who bleats and screeches about family values and yet he has been divorced2 times and married 3 times.
Also a man who is very anti-drug, yet on several occasions back when he worked for the Kansas City Royals was observed “stoned off his ass,” by none other then George Brett.
For the record, Rush Limbaugh actually treads very lightly on “family values.” Don’t accuse him of a hypocrisy he hasn’t committed.
If anything, chastise him for condemning welfare leeches while failing to mention that he took public assistance himself. Actually, he did mention it in 1995, but everyone seems to have forgotten.
This tidbit is included in Al Franken’s …Is a Big Fat Idiot – ironically, in a chapter where he lifts Limbaugh’s statements and pairs them with questions out of context. As a joke.
Just missed you, bio-brat. But I fail to see what that site has to do with Rush Limbaugh. You know, the radio commentator? It certainly isn’t his official site, and bears little resemblance to the actual content of his on-air program.
Apparently I’m an idiot. His picture was on the home page, the site is called "Rush-Online, there’s a bunch of quotes from him, and it’s seriously conservative.
My OP was about a specific broadcasting practice and its technical and/or legal implications, NOT about Rush Limbaugh as a person. Please save your comments for Great Debates.
Sorry, rasta. I just wanted to make a mark, since I figured pldennison had already given the most appropriate answer. At least, that’s the answer I concur with.
Actually, I’ve worked in plenty of newsrooms in various media over the years and I would make the argument that Limbaugh, like him or not, is actually far MORE fair to people when he plays their own words on the air.
In radio or local TV, the rule of thumb is to limit any kind of soundbyte to no more than fifteen seconds. Limbaugh will often play soundcuts of someone like, say, Tom Daschle, and he’ll play the ENTIRE cut. I’ve heard him play soundcuts on his show that were well over two minutes. Hell, even network TV and radio news stations do not have that kind of luxury.
Believe me, you interview someone for twenty minutes, you’ll be able to find PLENTY of six- or seven-second cuts that could be used to support any point-of-view you’re thinking of promoting.
When you play someone’s full two-minute answer, it’s almost impossible to slant it in any way…
As to why he reads the questions then plays the actual soundcut? Well, it IS his show. He has a transcript, he reads the interviewer’s question then hits the sound. I’d guess it has something to do with ‘Fair Use’ or copyright issues. The soundcut is news; playing Katie Couric’s question and THEN Daschle’s answer is simply rebroadcasting, perhaps illegally, the “Today” show.
As a support to Stephe96’s statement, Rush played statements today from both Trent Lott and Tom Daschle concerning the Homeland Security Act, and he actually had to agree with Daschle’s statement and chastise Lott. I don’t think he can get away (much) with playing a direct quote out of context, unless, as it happens often, he’s satirizing. As for the OP, I believe he’s just saving time.
Well you won’t often catch me defending Rush Limbaugh, but, if he played Couric’s questions and Rumsfeld’s answers, then you would have a longish stretch of the program where the only voices you would hear would be Couric’s and Rumsfeld’s. If you had just tuned in you might wonder what program you were listening to - it would sound like the Katie Couric Show. By paraphrasing the questions himself, he maintains the Limbaugh flavour of the program. Also, playing the recorded Q&A verbatim might run into copyright problems, I don’t know.