The Volokh Conspiracy - Althouse on Limbaugh and Writing as a Way of Thinking.--

Ann Althouse has an interesting account of the largely favorable New York Times Magazine story on Rush Limbaugh. I was surprised that Althouse listens regularly to Limbaugh. As far as I know (and I am probably wrong on this), none of my friends watches or listens regularly to Limbaugh, Hannity, or O'Reilly. I haven't watched even 5 minutes of O'Reilly in many years, I see a few minutes of Hannity every month or so when switching channels (about as much as I see of Keith Olbermann), and Limbaugh I hear perhaps twice a year when I'm in a rental car and can't find anything else worth listening to.

What struck me about Ann's post was her discussion of how Limbaugh thinks through his ideas. She first quotes Limbaugh's response to a question about how he was going to handle Barack Obama:

"I haven't yet figured that out exactly," he said. "You know, I've had a problem with substance abuse. I don't deal with the future anymore. I take things one day at a time." . . .

[Ira] Glass compares Limbaugh to another exceptional free-form radio monologist, Howard Stern. "A lot of people dismiss them both as pandering and proselytizing and playing to the lowest common denominator, but I think that misses everything important about their shows," he says. "They both think through their ideas in real time on the air, they both have a lot more warmth than they're generally given credit for, they both created an entire radio aesthetic."

Ann offers these comments:

Glass — who is one of the public figures in America who should be counted on those 2 hands — is absolutely right about Limbaugh and Stern. That explains very well why I listen to all 3 men.

And these:

I think [Limbaugh] knows that doing things day-by-day keeps the show alive and makes it work. It's what works in blogging too. If you have a whole planned agenda and you just crank out the propaganda, people will get sick of you. It's when you are talking/writing to figure out what you think, to find out what you want to say, that you are interesting.

I share Ann's affection for bloggers who are trying to observe and understand what they are writing about, rather than always writing op-eds with a thesis they are trying to prove (which is one reason that I enjoy reading her blog). Unfortunately, I find that many blog readers prefer strongly thesis-driven posts, which they can either echo or attack point by point.

	[Jim Lindgren, July 2, 2008 at 9:42pm] Trackbacks Althouse on Limbaugh and Writing as a Way of Thinking.-- Ann Althouse has an interesting account of the largely favorable New York Times Magazine story on Rush Limbaugh. I was surprised that Althouse listens regularly to Limbaugh. As far as I know (and I am probably wrong on this), none of my friends watches or listens regularly to Limbaugh, Hannity, or O'Reilly. I haven't watched even 5 minutes of O'Reilly in many years, I see a few minutes of Hannity every month or so when switching channels (about as much as I see of Keith Olbermann), and Limbaugh I hear perhaps twice a year when I'm in a rental car and can't find anything else worth listening to. What struck me about Ann's post was her discussion of how Limbaugh thinks through his ideas. She first quotes Limbaugh's response to a question about how he was going to handle Barack Obama: "I haven't yet figured that out exactly," he said. "You know, I've had a problem with substance abuse. I don't deal with the future anymore. I take things one day at a time." . . . [Ira] Glass compares Limbaugh to another exceptional free-form radio monologist, Howard Stern. "A lot of people dismiss them both as pandering and proselytizing and playing to the lowest common denominator, but I think that misses everything important about their shows," he says. "They both think through their ideas in real time on the air, they both have a lot more warmth than they're generally given credit for, they both created an entire radio aesthetic." Ann offers these comments: Glass — who is one of the public figures in America who should be counted on those 2 hands — is absolutely right about Limbaugh and Stern. That explains very well why I listen to all 3 men. And these: I think [Limbaugh] knows that doing things day-by-day keeps the show alive and makes it work. It's what works in blogging too. If you have a whole planned agenda and you just crank out the propaganda, people will get sick of you. It's when you are talking/writing to figure out what you think, to find out what you want to say, that you are interesting. I share Ann's affection for bloggers who are trying to observe and understand what they are writing about, rather than always writing op-eds with a thesis they are trying to prove (which is one reason that I enjoy reading her blog). Unfortunately, I find that many blog readers prefer strongly thesis-driven posts, which they can either echo or attack point by point.