Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, a journalist writes, and though Rush has successfully published two best sellers which he himself wrote and occasionally is asked to write an essay on some topic and these are always published, he is a radio personality and he does find innovative ways to make his content both provocative and entertaining. His goal of course is to not be boring, and to provide enough content to attract audience and keep people tuned in. He knows how to do that very well.
I agree that he does that very well. The problem for me is that that's really his end game. He does that well, but he doesn't offer intellectual honesty, level headed discourse, quality information, nor does he promote critical thought.
In short, he is an entertainer, not a quality media journalist. Which is fine, the problem comes from how he attempts to brand himself (as a quality media journalist) and how he is relied upon by many of his viewers as a legitimate source of media which he isn't.
As for quality material, he absolutely does offer that. In fifteen hours of programming, most of it being his own commentary,
That doesn't make it quality.
And there I would disagree, he tends to have a poor record of research which leads him into making highly emotive and provocative comments on a multitude of subjects that he pretends to have expert knowledge of, but really doesn't. His stance on the LRA comes to mind and his claim that Obama was sending troops to Africa to fight Christians. He was defending perhaps one of the best known international terrorist organizations in the world, and certainly one of the most brutal. Now of course everyone makes mistakes, but I have never listened to a show of his where he hasn't either gotten something wrong, over exaggerated something, or sensationalized it to the point of intellectual dishonesty. That's no way to disseminate information. I've seen entire countries fall to personalities like him. Luckily the rest of our society is strong enough to withstand him.
There have been times I've had to hit the books because I was sure he got something wrong, and found out to my chagrin that he was right. Other times I did find that he was wrong but those times are pretty rare. And he is good to correct himself on the air when it is pointed out to him that he was wrong about this or that.
The largest problem for me is his delivery, his emotiveness, his reliance on angry discourse and sensationalism and his habit of telling his viewers exactly what they should think (though his own discourse). That's not what journalists are supposed to do. He's a mockery to the institution.
I don't listen to a lot of talk radio these days, but when I was on the road I had a lot of exposure while driving hundreds of miles. There have been times I have strongly disagreed with Rush's conclusion about something and many times when I thought he crossed over the line into bad taste. But for the most part he offers three hours a day of information on topics we might not otherwise know about, accurate perspective on various issues of the political and/or socioeconomic world, and thoughtful insights into conservative principles and concepts and why and how liberalism fails.
I may come across as being a little hard on him, but I am hard on media in general given my background in it and given how important I feel the institution is. He isn't the only one that I dislike for his journalistic techniques. MSNBC, Fox News channel, Pretty much most mainstream tv news outlets, I don't particularly care for any of them. 60 minutes is alright, I think that Fareed Zakaria's GPS is excellent and more what media journalism should be like. Pretty much anyone who is a "personality" though I can't stand.
Then don't listen. GEEZUS guy! If you don't like what he has to say, find a different program. 2 million people listen to him every day.
Well, a journalist writes, and though Rush has successfully published two best sellers which he himself wrote, he is a radio personality and he does find innovative ways to make his content both provocative and entertaining. His goal of course is to not be boring, and to provide enough content to attract audience and keep people tuned in. He knows how to do that very well.
A writer writes, Foxy. A journalist reports news. A journalist is a writer but a writer isn't necessarily a journalist.
Clearly Lush is not a journalist, nor does he call himself one, but when he goes ahead and reports news it leaves the implication, which way too many people take as gospel. I think that's Osomir's point. You can see it all over this forum for example wherever somebody refers to the "Democrat Party". That's a dead giveaway because it's Limblob's malaprop. And that's why they get called "dittoheads"; they're outsourcing their political positions to a radio bloviator instead of coming up it on their own.
"Slut" and "she's having so much sex she can't afford the birth control" and "they're lined up around the block!" isn't sensationalism? What is it, chopped liver?
...QED.
Once again we're back to the old good/evil dichotomy and the demonization of every side but "ours". It may sell ads but it's useless as discourse, and detrimental thereto. Liberalism founded this country.
That makes no sense. You're saying Rush Limbaugh controls American elections, and Bill Clinton only got elected because Lush "permitted" it?
If he's not the leader of a vast horde of autnoritarian-worshippers, how come so many in these forums -- and in Republican politics-- fall all over themselves to make excuses for him?
Rush has the audience he does because he commands prime time on #1 stations and because he has content that can hold the interest of an audience, and mostly because he expresses the values and conservative beliefs of his audience. He was the first to arrive on the scene that allowed us to hear our beliefs and convictions expressed and validated. And there are a whole lot of us.
And THAT is why Rush Limbaugh is so successful.
Again, values and beliefs do not sell audience. Yelling "slut" sure does though.
Holy fuck. This idiot ^ pluggo likes to hear itself blather and bleat.
The fact that you are far too tired and sloppy-thinking to even comprehend what Rush is saying (and more than that, what he is ACTUALLY saying) does not reflect on Rush. It reflects on you.
Your overly inflated of your own opinion notwithstanding, you are not really very bright. You are just another blind partisan hack sheep liberal. Twits like you are a dime a dozen.
while neglecting to acknowledge that the same could be said about any of a number of Liberal radio and television personalities.
Actually I already did back on page 4 or 5 (this thread was merged with another).
Maddow, Cooper, Colms, Olberman etc. are all entertainers who play to an audience. What pisses Liberals off is not the competing message, but that more people tune in the Conservative voices.
I don't listen to any of those people, what bothers me is the poor quality of his content and his reliance on emotive discourse sensationalism and intellectual dishonesty.
Then don't listen. GEEZUS guy! If you don't like what he has to say, find a different program. 2 million people listen to him every day.
A writer writes, Foxy. A journalist reports news. A journalist is a writer but a writer isn't necessarily a journalist.
Clearly Lush is not a journalist, nor does he call himself one, but when he goes ahead and reports news it leaves the implication, which way too many people take as gospel. I think that's Osomir's point. You can see it all over this forum for example wherever somebody refers to the "Democrat Party". That's a dead giveaway because it's Limblob's malaprop. And that's why they get called "dittoheads"; they're outsourcing their political positions to a radio bloviator instead of coming up it on their own.
"Slut" and "she's having so much sex she can't afford the birth control" and "they're lined up around the block!" isn't sensationalism? What is it, chopped liver?
...QED.
Once again we're back to the old good/evil dichotomy and the demonization of every side but "ours". It may sell ads but it's useless as discourse, and detrimental thereto. Liberalism founded this country.
That makes no sense. You're saying Rush Limbaugh controls American elections, and Bill Clinton only got elected because Lush "permitted" it?
If he's not the leader of a vast horde of autnoritarian-worshippers, how come so many in these forums -- and in Republican politics-- fall all over themselves to make excuses for him?
Again, values and beliefs do not sell audience. Yelling "slut" sure does though.
Holy fuck. This idiot ^ pluggo likes to hear itself blather and bleat.
The fact that you are far too tired and sloppy-thinking to even comprehend what Rush is saying (and more than that, what he is ACTUALLY saying) does not reflect on Rush. It reflects on you.
Your overly inflated of your own opinion notwithstanding, you are not really very bright. You are just another blind partisan hack sheep liberal. Twits like you are a dime a dozen.
Hey, while Pogo is grossly unfair and blindly partisan and brainwashed with liberal talking points re Rush, he is quite bright and is in no way a twit. Everybody is entitled to some blind spots I guess, and Pogo has his.
I'm responding to you instead of him because he insists on chopping up the commentary so as to better distort what it says to his better advantage I suppose, and I hate that and rarely participate in it.
But it is obvious that he and other Rush-haters take words and content totally out of context and have no clue what he actually said or intended in context. And THAT is dishonest however much Rush's critics don't believe they are being dishonest.
One thing is for sure, they desperately want him to fail. And after more than a quarter century, when he finally puts away the golden microphone, they will in one chorus proclaim him FAILURE and driven out of the business. Even now they wet their pants in excitement whenever they can point to an advertiser who left the program or the ratings are down a tick. And not one of them can bring themselves to be honest about what Rush does nor admit to his success that surpasses everybody else who has ever been in the business.
Liberal!
December 20, 2007
RUSH: That's a liberal complaint. I'm an entertainer. Don't take me seriously.
January 18, 2013
RUSH: Snerdley is wanting to know why I didn't object to the previous caller praising my talents as a journalist. I think what happens here on this show is closer to real journalism than anything we're getting from so-called journalists. I have said for the longest time, "We do here what the mainstream journalists used to do."
A couple of things here:
1.) I think that many posters on this board tend to have a rather two dimensional understanding of the political spectrum. I'm not so sure why so many of you guys need to be able to label someone either a wholesale liberal or a wholesale conservative. It seems silly to me given the immense political diversity that we have within our country.
I'm not really interested in utilizing such shallow understandings of issues and people.
2.) My comments on Rush come from my perspective as a former print journalist, and from my perspective as a developmental economist who works with developing countries (primarily in Africa). One of the most vital parts of development for countries is the establishment of good institutions, so I tend to be pretty critical of institutions and place high importance on them and their development. Media is one such important institution so I have high standards. Standards that Rush falls well short of.
When I saw the title I thought maybe Rush had finally moved to Costa Rica or something.
When I saw the title I thought maybe Rush had finally moved to Costa Rica or something.
You mean the Dominican Republic?
Holy fuck. This idiot ^ pluggo likes to hear itself blather and bleat.
The fact that you are far too tired and sloppy-thinking to even comprehend what Rush is saying (and more than that, what he is ACTUALLY saying) does not reflect on Rush. It reflects on you.
Your overly inflated of your own opinion notwithstanding, you are not really very bright. You are just another blind partisan hack sheep liberal. Twits like you are a dime a dozen.
Hey, while Pogo is grossly unfair and blindly partisan and brainwashed with liberal talking points re Rush, he is quite bright and is in no way a twit. Everybody is entitled to some blind spots I guess, and Pogo has his.
I'm responding to you instead of him because he insists on chopping up the commentary so as to better distort what it says to his better advantage I suppose, and I hate that and rarely participate in it.
But it is obvious that he and other Rush-haters take words and content totally out of context and have no clue what he actually said or intended in context. And THAT is dishonest however much Rush's critics don't believe they are being dishonest.
One thing is for sure, they desperately want him to fail. And after more than a quarter century, when he finally puts away the golden microphone, they will in one chorus proclaim him FAILURE and driven out of the business. Even now they wet their pants in excitement whenever they can point to an advertiser who left the program or the ratings are down a tick. And not one of them can bring themselves to be honest about what Rush does nor admit to his success that surpasses everybody else who has ever been in the business.
Come off it, Foxy. I chopped up your post because you meandered into different points and it's more coherent to address them in turn, rather than start at the end and force the reader to back up to see what the hell I'm talking about. I do that for my reader, and this is the thanks I get. Hmph.
About that 'golden microphone' though... Electrovoice RE-20s do not come in gold. He did that. That says a little something about hubris. Just sayin'.
you like his football players comment Foxy?
Oh i agree, but he is often represented that way, and often represents himself that way. I suppose it more so bothers me how popular he is, and how strong of an influence he has on some conservative populations. As a former journalist, the quality and style of his reporting is also rather irritating given the low quality and standards he utilizes mixed with the emotive sensationalism. The same goes for "journalists" like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck (on the conservative side, there are plenty of liberal examples as well). We deserve better and it is disappointing that so many people get drawn into their rubbish.
^^^^
Clearly, a liberal claiming to be a Republican. Probably hates America too.
OK, so let's sum up: to criticize a radio blowhard who lives on ad hominem and misogyny and pisses on the idea of ethical journalism is to "hate America". Because America is all about ad hominem and misogyny and pissing on the idea of ethical journalism.
Is that about it?
Hey, while Pogo is grossly unfair and blindly partisan and brainwashed with liberal talking points re Rush, he is quite bright and is in no way a twit. Everybody is entitled to some blind spots I guess, and Pogo has his.
I'm responding to you instead of him because he insists on chopping up the commentary so as to better distort what it says to his better advantage I suppose, and I hate that and rarely participate in it.
But it is obvious that he and other Rush-haters take words and content totally out of context and have no clue what he actually said or intended in context. And THAT is dishonest however much Rush's critics don't believe they are being dishonest.
One thing is for sure, they desperately want him to fail. And after more than a quarter century, when he finally puts away the golden microphone, they will in one chorus proclaim him FAILURE and driven out of the business. Even now they wet their pants in excitement whenever they can point to an advertiser who left the program or the ratings are down a tick. And not one of them can bring themselves to be honest about what Rush does nor admit to his success that surpasses everybody else who has ever been in the business.
Come off it, Foxy. I chopped up your post because you meandered into different points and it's more coherent to address them in turn, rather than start at the end and force the reader to back up to see what the hell I'm talking about. I do that for my reader, and this is the thanks I get. Hmph.
About that 'golden microphone' though... Electrovoice RE-20s do not come in gold. He did that. That says a little something about hubris. Just sayin'.
You chopped up the post so you could take my words out of context and in so doing distort my intent and thesis.
I think it is hubris to accuse somebody's character over a fun gimmick. The golden microphone is something Rush and his guest hosts have had fun with for a long time. I'm not surprised that a dedicated Rush Hater would find something offensive about that because nothing he can do or say is not offensive to you. But that's how prejudice is. It destroys all objectivity and becomes its own reality and feeds upon itself.
Rush Limbaugh has paved a new chapter in radio history, has enjoyed greater success of longer duration than anybody else in radio history, and you can't take that away from him no matter how much you cherry pick this word or that word and try to make it into something that it never was.
Then don't listen. GEEZUS guy! If you don't like what he has to say, find a different program. 2 million people listen to him every day.
I feel at this point that you are having a hard time understanding what my argument actually is. I am criticizing him for the damage that he does to our media institutions.
Actually I already did back on page 4 or 5 (this thread was merged with another).
I don't listen to any of those people, what bothers me is the poor quality of his content and his reliance on emotive discourse sensationalism and intellectual dishonesty.
Then don't listen. GEEZUS guy! If you don't like what he has to say, find a different program. 2 million people listen to him every day.
Again, the point here is not "you should listen" or "you should not listen". It's how the content works and the value (or lack) thereof. That's it.
Hey Don't ever mention Maddow and Cooper!!!!Then don't listen. GEEZUS guy! If you don't like what he has to say, find a different program. 2 million people listen to him every day.
I feel at this point that you are having a hard time understanding what my argument actually is. I am criticizing him for the damage that he does to our media institutions.
You do realize that he is an entertainer, don't you?
What do you do if you don't like a show on TV?
You change the channel, do you not?
I could sit here and tell you how I feel that Maddow and Cooper are damaging our media institutions and you would shout "Bullshit!"
But you are so damned convinced that Conservatives are evil and Progressives are enlightened higher life forms, that you fail to see that Maddow and Limbaugh are doing exactly the same thing., and it pisses you the fuck off that Limbaugh does it better.
you like his football players comment Foxy?
You do realize that he is an entertainer, don't you?
What do you do if you don't like a show on TV?
You change the channel, do you not?
I could sit here and tell you how I feel that Maddow and Cooper are damaging our media institutions and you would shout "Bullshit!"
But you are so damned convinced that Conservatives are evil and Progressives are enlightened higher life forms, that you fail to see that Maddow and Limbaugh are doing exactly the same thing., and it pisses you the fuck off that Limbaugh does it better.
