Regrettably, Rhodes Returns to Radio
Almost as soon as Air America stopped carrying Randi Rhodes, Clear Channel picked up her program. In my colunm for today's Rocky Mountain News, I bemoan the fact that she attracts a much larger audience than did thoughtful radio hosts such as Gary Hart and Mario Cuomo.
The common misconception about commercial broadcasting exists even among the nonparanoid: that the broadcaster's business is to deliver what the broadcaster believes is the best programming to its audience. The obvious economic truth is that the broadcaster's business is to deliver the eyes and ears of the largest audience possible to the program sponsors. The sponsors, not the audience, directly pay the broadcaster.
Program hosts come to broadcasters with a portfolio of Arbitron or other ratings of audience size in various markets, and in many cases with sponsors already signed. The broadcaster wants to know "how much can you make for me?" This is no different a consideration than in any other area of employment.
"Wild exaggerations" are much more common on talk radio than "thoughtful analysis."
The market have spoken, Rush &Rhodes, windbags both, have jobs due to good ratings.
Name one lie for either person provide link.
Also, last year I did a lot of driving. One afternoon I was flipping channels and came across Randi Rhodes. Never heard of her before that. Ms Rhodes was reading several letters supposedly written and signed by G.W. Bush, authorizing any means necessary, including outright torture, to get info from Islamic captives. Another presidential 'letter,' again supposedly signed by Bush, spoke about a secret plan to take over all of Iraq's oil resources.
The putative Bush letters were full of grammatical errors, inflammatory language, and the letters she read sounded like you would expect, coming from a Michael Savage clone of the Left. The letters Rhodes was reading were clearly bogus; only a Daily Kos true believer would put any credence in Rhodes' story line, and if what she was reading was for real, every newspaper in America would have generated a lot of ink over them. Yet Rhodes passed her letters off as being genuine, and she kept repeating that they were signed by the President: "Right here! It's his signature!!" And so on, hyperventilating all the while.
Not that people across the political spectrum don't lie. But Rhodes is at least as dishonest as anyone else on the air. But she probably tells the hippies exactly what they want to hear.
Gonna raise? Or fold?
I confess when I read "Gary Hart" in the post, I immediately thought of his "Monkey Business Crew" fiasco.
I just want to know when Patricia Calhoun is going to replace Peter Boyles as the host of Colorado Inside Out. I don't agree with her, either, but she's done a better job as moderator than Boyles ever did. Maybe it's the difference between being an editor and being a radio talk show host.
And when are they going to get rid of that vile hatemonger Danni Newsum (sp?).
Of course, I haven't watched the show in eight years, so maybe it's better now.
I'm not sure if this is serious. In case it is, how about here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Maybe I was a bit young and idealistic when I listened to talk radio in the 1980s and 1990s (eg: Peter Boyles, Mike Rosen, Greg Dobbs, etc.) but it seems that the quality declined after Rush Limbaugh became popular in the early 1990s. And I say that as somebody who was a conservative Republican for much of that time.
Before, it seemed that the hosts would be willing to engage the callers in some dialog. But along came Rush, who allowed the caller to get in one sentence, and then went off on a five minute monologue -- over and over again.
Now, talk radio hosts -- both Left and Right -- are more concerned with berating and belittling their callers for ratings.
I haven't listened to talk radio in eight years, but I'm going to guess it's gotten worse.
Looks like a straight flush to me.
I'm not sure if this is serious. In case it is, how about here, here, here, here, here, and here.<<<
Okay, cool. That takes care of O'Really.
How about Limbaugh?
Got some Oberfuhrer clips on him?
O'Reilly leads off with this 'lie' [well, according to the odious George Soros-financed Media Matters, this is a 'lie']:Fine. Maybe Media Matters folks are mind readers, and knew exactly what O'Reilly meant. But I doubt you'd convict anyone on perjury for that. See, this isn't quite up to the standard of someone repeatedly stating that she ran through sniper fire in Bosnia. Also, keep in mind that this is the very same Clinton Library that played heavy-duty politics recently by denying the media access to Hillary's archives until *ahem* after next November -- and then it denied that the Clintons had any influence on that decision.
Ri-i-i-i-i-ght.
So my bad, I only skimmed the rest of the Media Matters propaganda, and looked for any 'lies' told by Limbaugh. Seems there aren't any in that 'straight flush.' In fact, none of the links even mentions Limbaugh. Slate has their Limbaugh-free... Even going back through Slate's 2002 and 2001 archives, there's no Limbaugh. And the YouTube videos? They're all O'Reilly [and for all I know, O'Reilly is a fibber -- or maybe he just talks out his ass like a lot of folks do; that's all he seems to be doing in the quote above]. I suspect that plenty of folks comb through every utterance of Limbaugh, desperately hoping to find a fib. If Limbaugh is a liar, it should be easy to find proof.
So. Care to try again? Seriously. Because what you thought was a spade in that 'straight flush' must have been a club. That happens sometimes when you tar everyone with the same brush, no?
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand
Let's see... Randi Rhodes on radio, versus a cadre of govt-sponsored retired generals on FOX News, ABC, CNN, etc. etc.
Yeah that's "fair and balanced"...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803280011?f=s_search
I don't really have the patience to sift through the archives, that's just the best from the first 15 (of 1071) when you search "Limbaugh" on Media Matters. Even assuming 90% of them are not outright lies, you've got over 100 to choose from. But I'm sure you didn't really expect that someone whose job has been propaganda for over 10 years would have a spotlessly honest record, did you?
I guess some people just aren't capable of calling a spade a spade
Were you seriously saying you couldn't find any Rush Limbaugh lies on Media Matters*?
[*The final example is incredibly lame and isn't included to show lying. I threw it in because it made me laugh. Media Matters' refutation of that statement should retire the trophy for damning with faint praise.]
As for Olberman, I'm glad he set a record last week for the longest period he's held a job in broadcasting without getting fired. His one sided anti O'Reilly diatribes are the primary reason he has any ratings at all. He's the hero of MSNBC but based on their line up and the numbers they deliver (or more accurately the numbers they don't deliver) that isn't saying a whole lot.
You may not like Fox news or Limbaugh, but based on the ratings books I see and the overnights, America seriously disagrees with you on that.
O'Reilly regularly pulls 3 to 5 times the viewers that Olberman has and Rush has more listeners in one hour than Air America, at its peak, had in an entire week.
And so what if O'Reilly and Limbaugh are popular? I don't think anybody disputes their popularity (though many of us regret it).
What, you mean retired generals have a relationship with the military?
Heavens.
I understand. The truth hurts.
The challenge was made and repeated to point out one lie Rush has told. I linked to six quick ones out of hundreds. Show me that all six contain misquotes or other fabrications and I promise never to link to Media Matters again on this site. Otherwise, the evidence for Rush's lying stands for itself.
And there you have it: the point of Media Matters. Since Media Research Center is routinely documenting media bias, Soros set up an organization to provide a smoke screen for the overwhelmingly liberal media by making hundreds of claims about Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And the leftists are going to demand that we refute an entire web site.
I'm not playing that game.
No mistake Rush Limbaugh or O'Reilly has made comes close to any of the infamous lies of CBS (Rathergate) CNN (nerve gas) ABC (Food Lion) NBC (rockets on vehicles), NY Times (Jason Blair, let alone Walter Duranty) or the AP (fauxtographs). All of these were deliberate, orchestrated lies with political goals and Limbaugh and O'Reilly simply never engaged in anything like that. The left has repeatedly embraced liars and never purged them from their ranks, and so you've got to live with that fact.
Yup, that's why Bush is still so popular in America. Along with all the Republicans.
"The left has repeatedly embraced liars and never purged them from their ranks, and so you've got to live with that fact."
Let's see. Rather was indeed fired for Rathergate, or at least forced to resign early. Jason Blair was a lone individual who was fired by the NY Times, so there is some purging of wrongdoers. When has Hannity or Limbaugh been fired or even reprimanded for anything they have said?
Okay -- perhaps they don't outright lie. I'll buy that one. (Except that I loved that one lie about the roving lesbians who rape men). But outright distortions? Virtually every single day. But that's okay -- because they are distortions that the right loves.
Randy R. hit the nail on the head:None of the Media Matters breathless articles is reporting what could credibly be called a 'lie.' They are opinions. If that's all that Media Matters can come up with on someone who has broadcast nationally for 20 hours a week for the past twenty years, then Limbaugh has to be one of the most honest people on the planet.
There is no credible comparison between Limbaugh and Hillary, or Dan Rather, or Obama, or the NY Times, or McCain, or the Clintons' propaganda organ Media Matters, for that matter. Every one of them engages in much more 'distortion' than Limbaugh.
Some folks seem confused about the difference between a casual opinion and a "lie." We already know about Mrs Clinton's cattle futures lying, and her Bosnia lying. And remember when Slick looked us in the eye on TV, shook his bony finger at the country, and stated: See the difference?
I also love how poeple are saying "Well Media Matters = Soros, so I'm not gonna discuss what it says." You people probably think those swift boat guys were brave truth-tellers, eh?
I listen to Rush when I can, and he is willing to put a square peg into a round hole if it helps his narrative. I'd imagine Ms. Rhodes does the same. When you start saying this "I know you are but what am I?" stuff, take a look at yourself. You just might find you are acting like a crazy person.
Did you read the article? The problem is not the mere fact that retired generals have a relationship with the military.
It's the fact that the government exploited and expanded its relationship to the retired generals in order to have the generals repeat government-contrived propaganda in the guise of their own opinions, with no party disclosing that fact to the media outlets or their viewers.
Look at the documents. You have emails with "talking points" (read: LIES) coming from the government, quoted verbatim in op-eds and on air. In exchange, the retired generals were special access to high-level meetings and officials going right up to Rumsfeld. And if they dared contradict the govt "talking points", the access was pulled. Simultaneously, you have many of the retired generals lobbying for defense contractors.
Conflicts of interest up the wazoo, yet nowhere being disclosed.
So all this is just peachy with you?
No. I find it astonishing and disturbing that you find it even faintly surprising that retired generals are repeating things they hear from the government, or that the DoD has an interest in seeing that these generals have current information, or that the DoD tells them this information, or that when they do, it's the story as DoD sees it.
As I said, "heavens!" I'll extend that to "who would ever have thought?"
Your assertion that these "talking points" are, ipso facto, "lies" says more about your intellectual capabilities and personal biases than about the generals.
Tell me, can you bathe and dress yourself, or do you have assistance, or are you living in a group home?
Oh I don't find it surprising at all. But something doesn't have to be "surprising" to be outrageously wrong and immoral.
Charlie (Colorado) says:
Again, you are ignoring the crucial fact here: All parties involved were hiding the fact that the "information" came from the government. If, as you claim, this is simply the DoD trying to make sure people have accurate information, then why do they have to keep it a secret???
Charlie (Colorado) says:
Well then, let's look at a few statements from the generals themselves:
Example 1, from the horse's mouth:
Example 2, from the horse's mouth:
Example 3, from the horse's mouth:
Example 4, from the horse's mouth:
Charlie (Colorado) says:
Tell me, can you make an argument without resorting to ad hominems?
Another example:
Another example:
You're beating a dead tree, here.
The article is extensively sourced to hard documents -- memos, emails, transcripts, etc. If you don't trust the writing, go look at the documents themselves, they're online.
From one of those breathless Media Matters articles:
Did Media Matters misquote Rush or the 9/11 Report? Otherwise, that's an "opinion" about as much as "I never had sex with that woman" is an opinion.
LM, I think you're conflating "mistake of fact" with "lie."
Of course, for the Media Matters crowd, those terms evidently are synonymous, given the "Bush lied, children died" nonsense. Being wrong on the facts doesn't mean you're lying about them.
The difference between a mistake and a lie is intent. Except in the rare instance when somebody admits a lie, intent has to be inferred. Any random misstatement might be a mistake. A hundred misstatements with no particular ideological bias might be mistakes. A long history of misstatements erring in the same ideological direction is no mistake.
Media Matters.
The usual 'conservatives are never wrong, liberals always are' tone I get these days IS nonsense .
Yes, but sometimes a sharp blow is useful it bringing someone to their senses.
In the mean time, Max Boot makes the same points. It's simply stupid to think that the Pentagon doesn't try to get its version out, and even more stupid to think they wouldn't do so through retired military members known to be in contact with the news people and known to be sympathetic. Either you actually are silly enough to believe this is deeply wrong, in which case my question could be a real concern --- or you're simply mendacious.
You pick.
Yes, but sometimes a sharp blow is useful it bringing someone to their senses.
In the mean time, Max Boot makes the same points. It's simply stupid to think that the Pentagon doesn't try to get its version out, and even more stupid to think they wouldn't do so through retired military members known to be in contact with the news people and known to be sympathetic. Either you actually are silly enough to believe this is deeply wrong, in which case my question could be a real concern --- or you're simply mendacious.
You pick.
That's fine. I don't care what you think of Media Matters. But unless you can show where they misquoted Rush Limbaugh or the source Limbaugh misquoted, it has nothing to do with this issue.
To this day, Kerry refuses to sign his SF-180. Maybe he doesn't want his Dishonorable Discharge from the Navy -- for traveling to Hanoi during the Vietnam War and giving the enemy aid and comfort -- to become public.
<<<
What you said.
As i've said once already, I'm not the least surprised to see the government doing this, and I always figured it was precisely what was going on. BUT THE FACT THAT SOMETHING IS NOT SURPRISING DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.
I'm not surprised people murder each other every day, and one would be stupid to think it doesn't happen; THAT DOES NOT MEAN MURDER IS EXCUSABLE.
And systematically spreading lies to gin up support for a war is not excusable either...
How funny that you completely ignored the numerous quotes from several of the generals themselves stating that the government was using this program to spread blatant lies! This after claiming my statement was "more about my intellectual capabilities and personal biases than the generals themselves" -- Hilarious!!
Obviously you hadn't actually read the article...
(And whenever I hear the name Randi Rhodes, I think Ozzy Osborne's original guitarist.)
As for the NYT fizzle on the "scandal" of retired generals, Max Boot does a reasonable job in dissecting it and John Podhoretz pilesl on. And as for retired generals, at least one of the posts on them still has General Wayne Downing's picture up--General Downing died last year of meningitis--a real loss as Wayne Downing was a real soldier.
In other news, Vatican sources reveal that Pope Benedict XVI is a Roman Catholic.
You people probably think those swift boat guys were brave truth-tellers, eh?
IF you can prove any of the Swiftboat charges untrue, you should collect the $1Million from T. Boone Pickens so you can quit your day job and start blogging full time. Apparently he and Kerry haven't come to terms yet, so it looks like the offer is still open.
From wikipedia.org article on T. Boone Pickens:
"Pickens has offered $1 Million to anyone who can prove any of the Swiftboat charges untrue. Kerry accepted the challenge and on November 17, 2007 said he would disprove the charges against him.[6] Pickens then added additional criteria to his initial challenge [7], asking for Kerry's service records, videos and tapes made during his service and his military journal. Kerry responded, saying Pickens had backtracked and offered again to meet him in a public forum to dispute his claims [8]. Pickens has yet to respond.
Swift Boat challenge
Main article: Swift Boat challenge
On November 6, 2007, Pickens reportedly offered a million dollars to anyone who could disprove even a single charge made by the Swiftvets and POWs for Truth (SBVT), an anti-Kerry group he had supported in 2004.[22] John Kerry, whose military record and anti-war activism during Vietnam was the target of the group's book and media campaign, sent Pickens a letter on November 16, 2007, accepting the challenge, requesting that Pickens donate the money to the Paralyzed Veterans of America should he succeed in disproving any of the SBVT claims [22].
In response to Kerry's acceptance of the challenge, Pickens issued a letter the same day, narrowing the original challenge to the SBVT ads, and requiring Kerry to provide his Vietnam journal, all of his military records, specifically those covering the years after his active duty service, and copies of all movies and tapes made during his service. Pickens' letter also challenged Kerry to agree to donate $1 million to the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation, if Kerry "cannot prove anything in the Swift Boat ads to be untrue." [23]
On November 20, 2007, Kerry issued a letter responding to Pickens' letter. He accused Pickens of "parsing and backtracking" on his initial offer and wrote that "I am prepared to prove the lie and marshal all the evidence, the question is whether you are prepared to fulfill your obligation." He concluded that "the only thing remaining now is to set the date for our meeting in an appropriate forum...." [24]"
Most of the 'debunking' of the SBVT's claims involves simply questinging the motives of certain members and using those motives to smear all the others, or treating an unprovable counterclaim as proof the SBVT's are lying (even when the counterclaim is exactly as unproven as the initial claim)
But Kerry *was* forced to retract his Cambodian stories... lies that he had actually told on the floor of the Senate during a debate relating to the Panama invasion.
But of course you won't catch the media mentioning that, or usinging "Christmas in Cambodia" as a euphamism for lying. This is because they are all right-wing hacks.
You right-wingers can't get anything right. Tony Iommi, of Black Sabbath fame, was Ozzy Osbourne's original guitarist. Randi Roads was his orginal guitarist as a solo act.
Now, for extra credit, what other English rock band did Tony Iommi briefly quit Sabbath for? Hint; it was before Sabbath or the other band were popular.
Extra-Credit: I thought I knew. But I looed on Wikipedia and I was wrong.
The BoGlo doesn't exactly say that they have the records; it's just sort of vaguely implied. And that article was from ~3 years ago. If Kerry's records were released, they'd be all over the internet.
And it's mighty suspicious that following Kerry's travels to Hanoi, his soul mate Jimmy Carter issued a blanket pardon to everyone who gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
If Kerry's SF-180 is so innocent, why won't Kerry release the info to the public, like Bush did?
But Ozzy was in Sabbath, so Tony was his first guitarist. And, BTW, it was Jethro Tull. If I remember correctly, it was like two weeks and then he quit because Ian Anderson was such a controlling jerk.
If you want another shot at the extra credit, post that answer here.
But by now his leg must be killing him, so these things even out.