Rush Limbaugh and the media's abdication (Or: We're fact-checking satire and slandering satirists now?)

Wed, 10/14/2009 - 22:53 — Ben

I'm more exercised by the harm school administrators and their stupid policies do to kids than I am bothered by news that Rush Limbaugh won't get to own a piece of the St. Louis Rams. But I'm still plenty bothered.

Limbaugh was slandered and libeled. Without question. Cable news networks aired wholly fabricated quotations attributed to the conservative radio talk show host. Worse, when those networks were called on the fabrications, they refused to retract or apologize. CNN's Rick Sanchez aired the phony quotes. Sanchez later said that although the phony quotes were "in dispute," Limbaugh had said plenty of offensive things. So there!

John Hinderaker at Powerline observes: "It is worth noting, as a kind of macabre footnote, that CNN found it worthwhile to 'fact check' Saturday Night Live when that program had the temerity to ridicule CNN's President, The One. Maybe CNN could become a respected news organization if it tried to fact check news stories as well as comedy skits, starting with--is this too much to ask?--its own broadcasts."

And Mark Steyn asks: "Can Rush buy the St Louis Rams if he gets Roman Polanski to front the deal?"

Incidentally, Steyn points to an excellent piece by Toby Harden in the London Telegraph, who writes:

The irony is, of course, that the people reporting this as fact are the same types who are always denouncing bloggers and the internet as forces of evil intent on destroying proper journalism – proper journalism being the kind that involves checking facts. In the case of Rush Limbaugh, however, it seems to be enough that the intention (i.e. to show the talk radio host is a racist) is considered pure.

Even those who have been primary movers in spreading these malicious falsehoods – which would lead to payouts of hundreds of thousands in British libel courts if lawsuits were ever filed there – are brazenly unapologetic.

Thus, St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bryan Burwell pens this column containing the slavery quote and then follows up with another column with a kind-of-sort-of-well-not-really-at-all mea culpa in which he states that the quote seemed “so in character with the many things that Limbaugh has said before that we didn’t verify it beyond the book”.

OK, so it sounded right and it was on the internet or in a book or something so it was fine to just go ahead and print it as stone-cold fact without any attribution? I wonder which journalism school teaches that?

None of them. And all of them.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

Trackback URL for this post:

http://infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=trackback/6711

Ben's blog

Comments

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 05:16 — Frank Lynch (not verified)

Douche

yeah Deutsch just set himself up for being called Ronnie Douche on the Limbaugh show. I think Limbaugh is a douche as well however I would have used a different word if my last name was Deutsch.

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 07:07 — Dr. Zaius

Rush and the Rams

the quote seemed “so in character with the many things that Limbaugh has said before that we didn’t verify it beyond the book”.

Also known as "too good to check." Shameful. There is simply nothing worse you can be called in our society than a racist — which is one of the reasons why that cop in Cambridge fought back against the accusations lodged against him by Obama's Harvard professor buddy Gates.

So the MSM's defense is, "everyone knows Rush is a racist, so the accuracy of a single quote really doesn't matter." Ok, how about getting some genuinely racist quotes out there for us to evaluate? If Rush is such a racist, can't be too hard, right? Would only take an intern a few minutes. (And don't throw that Donovan McNabb quote out there. What Rush said in that instance was not racist. At. All.) Oh, and if you don't come up with a "racist" comment by Rush that is in the category of him wanting to own a team so he can pretend he's back in the plantation slavery days ... no sale.

By the way, did anyone at CNN or elsewhere in the MSM even hesitate for one minute to throw that libel out there? Rush said, 11 years ago on the air, something about liking it when blacks were on the plantation or praising slavery and it slid past everyone until now? Seriously? At about the same time Clinton was blaming him for the Oklahoma City Bombing and he was being monitored constantly by his political enemies?

Again, too good to check, I guess. Let's just destroy Rush.

Anyway, John Ziegler wrote aout this on Big Hollywood stating, basically, that Rush must fight this to the end. He cannot cave because it would let the bastards win.

Unfortunately, he had to put a "Rush is out" update on the top of his piece soon after posting it. Ziegler's take is still worth reading. An excerpt:

Quite simply, what is happening to Rush is beyond outrageous and frankly dangerous to the property and free speech rights of all Americans. This is so obvious that even Keith Olbermann (whose own appearance on Sunday night NFL telecasts should be seriously questioned) has somewhat supported Rush’s position here.

And yet my sense is that the general reaction from many conservatives is to not take this topic very seriously. Some seem to think the issue is frivolous or that Rush is doing this for publicity.

Folks, this is a huge deal. If Rush Limbaugh is not even allowed to be considered to be a minority owner of a property where his primary intent to help the community where he grew up, an incredibly dangerous precedent will have been set and the narrative that conservatism is synonymous with racist will be further cemented in the public consciousness.

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 08:10 — Khabalox

Stacking the deck

Oh, and if you don't come up with a "racist" comment by Rush that is in the category of him wanting to own a team so he can pretend he's back in the plantation slavery days ... no sale.

So you want us to find a "racist" quote, but it doesn't count unless it compares owning an NFL team to owning a plantation? So he's not a racist unless he wants to own slaves? Setting the bar a bit high (or is it low) aren't you?

Note: There is no excuse for not fact checking, and misquoting someone is bad journalism whether or not the "quote" is similar in theme to other statement or not.

Question: Is the outrage here because he was misquoted by Sanchez? Or is it that he was dropped by the group bidding on the Rams? Because I don't see anything objectionable in the latter.

RE: Ben's "Sanchez Aired the phony quotes" link:
The author (Matthew Balan) of that piece says:

This is an actual quote from Limbaugh, which he made on his talk show on September 15, 2009. But, as in the case of the McNabb controversy, he was attacking the mainstream media. Here’s the full context:

“Hey, look, folks, the white kid on that bus in Belleville, Illinois, he deserved to be beat up. You don’t know about this story? Oh, there’s video of this. The school bus filled with mostly black students beat up a white student a couple of times with all the black students cheering. Of course the white student on the bus deserved the beating. He was born a racist. That’s what Newsweek magazine told us in its most recent cover. It’s Obama’s America, is it not? Obama’s America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering...and, of course, everybody says the white kid deserved it, he was born a racist, he’s white. Newsweek magazine told us this. We know that white students are destroying civility on buses, white students destroying civility in classrooms all over America, white congressmen destroying civility in the House of Representatives.”

[End quote]
Now, I can see that he's criticizing Newsweek here (I haven't read the Newsweek piece - all I can find on their site is the video - so I can't poke holes in his critique), but I can also see that he is inciting the racial biases of his listeners, getting them to fear "Obama's America." Would he have made these comments were we living in "Kerry's America" or "Clinton's America" (Bill or Hillary)? No, of course not. We have a Black President, and our White Kids are now getting attacked in the sanctity of our school buses. It's Us against Them. It's a Race War. I'm not saying that this quote proves outright that Rush is a racist (though, like being gay, I think we are all a little racist), but he is certainly exploiting racial bias for financial gain or self promotion or both.

What's funny is that the Police Captain has said that the attack probably wasn't racially motivated (reversing his earlier statements):

“It was premature on my part,” said Belleville Police Capt. Don Sax. “It was my personal and emotional comment after only seeing the video briefly.”

I wonder if Rush ever did a follow up to set the record straight.

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 09:46 — ronaldalau

he didn't have to.

The police captain never came out and said 'it wasn't racially motivated', after he said it probably wasn't, which he said after he said it was. Maybe the Police Captain was afraid of telling the truth. Maybe he feared reprisals. Maybe he feared having to act against the child who broke the law, and could be charged with a hate crime.

And Rush wasn't inciting the racial biases of Me, because I am not a racist like you admit to being, or Soyamayor admits to being.

He was responding to Liberals claims of racism as cause for anyone disagreeing with Obama's America. And he did it so well that Liberals can't stand it and seek to neutralize it with the common tactic of accusations of racism based on their feelings instead of facts.

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 07:45 — Dr. Zaius

NFL to conservatives: We don't want your money

So says Monkey Friend Exurban Jon in a post this morning. Be sure to click through to see the photoshop master's revised NFL logo. Jon also writes:

Ahh, the NFL's "higher standard." Goodell's paragons of morality include convicted puppy torturer Michael Vick and a rogue's gallery of wife beaters, sexual predators and gamblers. But those who disagree with Obama need not apply.

Meanwhile NFL host Keith Olbermann just called conservative columnist Michelle Malkin a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it." Good thing he wasn't talking about Michelle Obama, or he would no longer be hosting Sunday Night Football. Because that would have been intolerant.

Jon is calling for an NFL boycott. Sorry, no can do. Not even Rush will boycott the NFL and his beloved Steelers — even though one Steeler player helped spread the "slavery" quote among the MSM.

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 08:16 — Khabalox

Hello? Private Enterprise?

Be sure to click through to see the photoshop master's revised NFL logo.

This is the conservative double standard I don't understand. Here we have a private organization, the NFL, which is making a decision it feels will improve it's bottom line and they are getting attacked for being what, pawns of the Government? Are you (the Right in general, not Zaius in particular) suggesting that the government step in and protect Rush's (non-existent*) right to buy a team?

*Non-existent because no one has a "right" to buy a team.

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 08:25 — Deregulator

Gotta say I agree with this post

... even though the MSM acquitted itself quite poorly here, and was eager to buy into anything, true or false, that would cast Rush in a bad light.

Limbaugh wanted to own a piece of an NFL team. The NFL (for whatever motivations -- it is a private organization, after all) got out the word that the league wasn't interested. His potential partners dropped him. Should be the end of the story.

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 08:35 — Ben

Re: Gotta say I agree...

Yeah, I really don't care what the NFL says or does. I'm not a fan, so I have nothing to "boycott" and I generally believe boycotts are a waste of time anyway. Businesses do all sorts of creepy things in an effort to keep customers. I was much more interested in how the media abetted the smears with utter fabrications of what Limbaugh said. It should be a bigger scandal than it is.

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 08:44 — Deregulator

BTW, I've almost stopped paying attention to the MSM

They've gone from being respected (sometimes feared) to a target of contempt to irrelevance. It's a shame, too.

I don't know how we'll get information in five years, or from what sources. I don't much care which outlets survive. So long as the big boys continue to claim that they are the impartial gatekeepers and then repeatedly belie those claims, I'll continue to give them less and less of my time.

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 10:56 — ronaldalau

Hello? Slander Laws?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,566983,00.html?test=faces

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 11:29 — Ben

Libel and slander

Yes, Rush might have grounds to sue for defamation, libel, slander, whatever. The libel standard is extremely difficult for a public figure to meet. Even if he won, it would be long, drawn-out, and expensive.

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 12:19 — Khabalox

Who are MSM?

I've seen the acronym MSM thrown around here a lot (usually with a somewhat negative connotation). I did finally figure out it meant Main Stream Media, but I'm still not sure exactly what it means.

Who qualifies as Main Stream Media? What makes one outlet part of it, and another not? I suppose different people might have slightly different lists, but if "MSM" is to mean anything, doesn't there need to be some sort of standard?

So, to you (the reading and typing monkey), which outlets are MSM (and who aren't). And why (or why not)?

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 13:17 — ronaldalau

NBC CBS ABC - National and Local TV/Radio

NY Times, LA Times, and every other Big City Newspaper.
The AP, Knight Ridder(sp?)
CNN MSNBC
PBS NPR

Just to name a few.

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 13:41 — Khabalox

Thanks for the examples...

But what are your criteria for those choices? And by what criteria does an outlet avoid getting on that list? Would you include the Washington Post? The Washington Times? Why or why not?

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 14:03 — ronaldalau

I just listed the ones I could think of at the time

sorry, I don't have any criteria other than the channels I get on cable, and the radio.

I don't really read newspapers anymore, but when I used to, my problem was that lots of commentary was showing up outside of the opinion page.

I remember the last paper article I read (meaning, off of an actual physical paper). It was about Cheny's first acceptance speech, where Cheney quoted Clinton. This AP story was embellished by the editor of the paper (Nothern Indiana something something) and the story went on to say that Cheney was taking Clinton out of context and that what Clinton really meant was such and such. I know it was the editor because I called him and asked. Then I had him transfer me to the circulation department.

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 14:27 — Dr. Zaius

RE: Thanks for the examples...

Basically the MSM could best be described as the "Liberal Media Industrial Complex." That encapsulates almost all the large metro dailies with few exceptions (New York Post, Washington Times, Washington Examiner), the American "news" weeklies, and all the networks on broadcast and cable with the exception of Fox News. The "elite" media.

Basically, if a reporter at The New York Times or the Washington Post looks down its nose at a media outlet, that outlet is not in the MSM, by and large. And as a former staffer for The Washington Times who covered both Congress and the White House, I can tell you that my colleagues did not consider me part of "the club."

And, of course, it goes without saying that "new media" outlets like Politico (even though it leans a little to the left and was founded by liberals) and blogs, etc. are not MSM. It's probably better to use "dinosaur media" to describe the newspaper, magazine and broadcast media, but MSM has been shorthand for years and years.

CSPAN doesn't count because it doesn't really "report" news, so much as record it raw for our consumption.

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 12:47 — Deregulator

Good question

My definition -- any news outlet/program that advertises itself as an objective, uninterested observer/reporter of the news.

This would include the news departments of the four commercial networks (though Fox doesn't have much of a national presence on its over-the-air stations) plus their local affiliates. Wire services. CNN.

PBS and NPR and other public radio outlets. The news departments of the vast majority of local radio stations.

Every full-service daily newspaper, local, regional, and national. Includes The Wall Street Journal, since it covers more than business stories.

U.S. newsweeklies -- Time, Newsweek, U.S. News.

I would not include the opinion pages, bylined columns, articles/essays/programs clearly marked as commentary, shows hosted by personalities with a clear and publicly stated point of view (O'Reilly, Olbermann, Matthews, Hannity, etc.).

What am I missing?

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 13:45 — Khabalox

Good definition

"U.S. newsweeklies"
Do you include UK magazines, or monthlies (e.g. The Economist)?

"CNN"
No other cable news channels? CSPAN? (It's uninteresting, if not uninterested.)

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 14:05 — ronaldalau

CSPAN?

I don't watch it.

I do remember seeing it WAY back in 1993, and I remember an RNC congressman questioning a budget item increase to educate women on the benefits of breastfeeding.

The DNC guy said 'because thats the way God intended it to be".
The RNC guy said 'yea, but he didn't have to spend 10 million dollars to to it"

Thu, 10/15/2009 - 14:06 — Deregulator

More details

Nothing outside the U.S. among English-language pubs, because the media traditions in other nations aren't the same as ours have been from roughly the 1920s until the present. The Brits/Australians/et al. have always been more tolerant of opinion creeping into news coverage.

CSPAN, no, because it typically retransmits congressional floor action, hearings, and public policy events. There are interview shows and call-ins, but CSPAN does not create its own content and call it news.

CNBC, perhaps, but its news coverage highlights business reporting, which I think should get more leeway in editorial judgment than "straight" news. That's why I also left out Forbes, Fortune, Business Week, Investor's Business Daily, etc. (Arbitrary? Maybe.)

MSNBC and Fox News Channel are not really trying or pretending to play it down the middle. And that's OK.

Fri, 10/16/2009 - 06:25 — Deregulator

May have to rethink this Limbaugh thing after all

Now that we know that the head of the NFLPA, DeMaurice Smith, once worked for AG Eric Holder and served on the Obama transition team and e-mailed every player, prodding them to speak out against Limbaugh, well, it looks a lot more suspicious.

After all, it's not the first time Team Obama has specifically targeted Limbaugh. And remember all the charges of racism shamelessly lobbed against opponents of the Dems' health care agenda?

Sounds like The One learned lessons not just from the Chicago machine but also from Tricky Dick. Great, just great.

Register

User login

Poll

Recent comments

Active forum topics

Recent blog posts

Who's online

Navigation

Credits, etc.