| |
 |
|
| Hobby Forum Index » Sport - Football » Fools Rush In - Can't they demonize Limbaugh without... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ubiquitous... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On the question of who should own the hapless St. Louis Rams, we can't say we
have much of an opinion. It's unfortunate that controversy-shy NFL owners
forced Rush Limbaugh to withdraw from an investment consortium bidding for the
team, but it's hard to muster much outrage. Blogger Tom Maguire puts it in
perspective: "Love him or hate him he has made fabulous living being
controversial and (that awful word) divisive. That has opened some doors to
him and, unsurprisingly, closed others."
But there is a genuine outrage in the use of phony quotes to accuse Limbaugh
of racism. NewsBusters.org notes that CNN and MSNBC have both attributed the
following fabricated quote to Limbaugh: "I mean, let's face it, we didn't have
slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite
the opposite: Slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back;
I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after
dark."
Another NewsBusters item quotes MSNBC's Rachel Maddow citing this phony quote:
"You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray. We miss
you, James. Godspeed." Ray assassinated Martin Luther King.
According to the second NewsBusters item linked above, these quotes appear in
"101 People Who Are Really Screwing America," a 2006 book by Jack Huberman.
(Disclosure: Huberman also quotes this columnist--accurately, as far as we can
tell--in explaining why "The Wall Street Journal editors" are one of the
"people who are really screwing America.") A blogger who goes by the handle
"Mike Smash!" tracks the James Earl Ray quote further back, to a September
2005 blog posting by one "zedlappy," who seems to have found it on a
since-edited Wikipedia page.
So what we have here is simply a slander that has become an urban legend--and
one that reporters and commentators don't bother to check because it fits
their preconception of Limbaugh.
It must be conceded that this preconception is not wholly without factual
basis. Race is a subject about which many Americans are highly sensitive, and
Limbaugh does talk about it in ways that, depending on your point of view, are
either refreshingly edgy or obnoxiously inconsiderate. MediaMutters.org has a
list of quotes that it describes as "racially charged" and that, as far as we
know, are accurate.
Whether because of policy or disability, however, the folks at MediaMutters do
not recognize humor (when John Kerry tells them he is making a joke, they take
his word for it!), so that their catalog of Limbaugh quotes fails to capture
the spirit in which he uttered them and, in all likelihood, in which most of
his readers understood them. To be sure, humorous intent does not confer
immunity from offense; the fake James Earl Ray quote, for instance, would
still be highly objectionable even if uttered in jest.
But one cannot begin to understand Limbaugh without realizing that satire is a
big part of what he does. The MediaMutters guys are beyond hope, but
Limbaugh-haters who do have a sense of humor ought to spent some listening to
him to see if their preconceptions are justified.
It's been done before: In 1993, syndicated columnist William Raspberry
described Limbaugh as a "bigot," then, when he heard from readers, spent some
time listening and penned a follow-up column conceding that he had been
unfair:
Rush, I'm sorry.
No, I still haven't become a Rush Limbaugh fan; I'm not that sorry...
He's smart-alecky, no question about it. He loves to rattle
liberal cages. He is unrelenting in his assault on the apostles
of political correctness and the militant feminists, whom he
calls (as I remember it) "feminazis." (Well, don't some of
these people make you a little uneasy?)
He is a master of ridicule. . . .
Don't Herblock and Art Buchwald [an editorial cartoonist and
humor columnist, respectively, for the Washington Post] exaggerate
for effect? Of course they do. What is a caricature if not an
exaggeration? Exaggeration, as every satirist understands, is
the essence of humor. It's been done better, of course. Rush
and Swift are not precisely synonymous. But what prompted my
earlier piece was not the quality of his satire, but its target.
It's a lot less funny when the ox being gored wears my brand.
When a caller asked me, quite reasonably, to give him an instance
or two of a bigoted opinion from Limbaugh, all he got was my
embarrassed silence. Sure he's taken digs at poor people and
rioters and feminists and the NAACP, but why should any of these
be immune? . . .
Limbaugh's is often (for many of us) the hated opinion, but that
doesn't, by itself, make him hateful.
No doubt some Limbaugh detractors have listened to him and come to a different
conclusion. But Raspberry showed real class in acknowledging that he had erred
in airing an uninformed opinion.
Those journalists who have attributed _fake_ quotes to Limbaugh have not only
done him wrong but have fallen short of the most basic professional standard.
They owe Limbaugh an apology, and they owe their audience a correction.
--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the Democrats did
to America. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:10 am
|
|