Sarah 'Barracuda' Palin and the Piranhas of the Press

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I believe the reason Rush was brought into this is because the person who wrote that big essay on the failure of the 4th Estate is a proud Rush listener and has said as much on numerous occasions.

No, Rush is not part of the press - if anything he is worse, given that he doesn't deal in journalism per-se and yet has this huge following. What that shows is that the fringe media (if Rush can be called fringe, personally I don't think so) is no better than the so-called "liberal mainstream media".

What a wasted and unoriginal segway. So what if I listen to Rush? I listen to a lot of political pundits. I never mentioned Rush in my posts, nor do I - unlike you libs - have difficulty telling the difference between a journalist, a reporter, a policitician and a political pundit. Rush this, Rush that, blah blah bleh. You are merely mimicking who you've been told by your lib leaders to hate and mock. Good grief! Can't yu see that there's no thinking involved in doing that?

I would love to agree with you, but then we would both be wrong. Listening to Rush for anything more than belly laughs is a sign you might need a good lobotomy.

Listening to Rush is, at this point and time, at least, stillmy right in America. Just as is listening to Keith Obermann, Chris Matthews, David Letterman or Jeanine Garafolo, with or without a lobotomy. I'm just glad that the "right", unlike the left is not so arrogant to believe that attacking the same people for stupid, inane reasons would make us look good, smart or electable.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I believe the reason Rush was brought into this is because the person who wrote that big essay on the failure of the 4th Estate is a proud Rush listener and has said as much on numerous occasions.

No, Rush is not part of the press - if anything he is worse, given that he doesn't deal in journalism per-se and yet has this huge following. What that shows is that the fringe media (if Rush can be called fringe, personally I don't think so) is no better than the so-called "liberal mainstream media".

What a wasted and unoriginal segway. So what if I listen to Rush? I listen to a lot of political pundits. I never mentioned Rush in my posts, nor do I - unlike you libs - have difficulty telling the difference between a journalist, a reporter, a policitician and a political pundit. Rush this, Rush that, blah blah bleh. You are merely mimicking who you've been told by your lib leaders to hate and mock. Good grief! Can't yu see that there's no thinking involved in doing that?

Wow touchy much? Danno asked why Rush was brought into the convo and I obliged.

You have referenced Rush numerous times in the past - enough to convey the impression that you think fairly highly of him - regardless of whatever other commentators, TV news shows or publications you may or may not watch, listen to or read.

It is questionable however to go off on a big rant about the state of journalism in this country (on which I agree with you) and yet not address some of the worst elements in the media (talking heads like Rush) - and the influence that they have, and the impact they have on public discourse.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Private Pike

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Listening to Rush is, at this point and time, at least, stillmy right in America. Just as is listening to Keith Obermann, Chris Matthews, David Letterman or Jeanine Garafolo, with or without a lobotomy. I'm just glad that the "right", unlike the left is not so arrogant to believe that attacking the same people for stupid, inane reasons would make us look good, smart or electable.

Rush is absolutely your inalienable right! I will ditto that.

I don't really listen or watch any of the 'liberal' folks you mentioned. I have heard of them though.

I don't 'attack' Rush for inane reasons, I 'attack' Rush [i would say make fun of, enjoy picking his shtick apart] because he is the king of horses.

He literally, with all sincerity, opined that Governor Sanford engaged in his affair because he was "so distraught" over Obama's handling of the country. Lest you say, well yes but then he clarified what he meant... Yes he did, and moron that he is, he reiterated later on, when asked by email if he could possibly have both said and meant that, yes he meant the good Governor was led astray by loss of hope brought on by Obama.

Fact 1 the affair started well before Obama took office.

Fact 2 the affair was not even tangentially relate-able, except in Rush' bent mind to President Obama

Fact 3, Fact 1 and 2 independently lead one to believe Rush is a loudmouth idiot.

There is literally no defense for such insanely stupid remarks, and it is merely a recent and outrageous example of Rush' stupidity. Nobody told me to think that, Rush led me to that conclusion.

Enjoy Rush by all means.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Michael Savage is worse (or at least, as bad) in a cartoonish, over the top way.

But all these guys are of a muchness in that respect. Quite what people get out of it is a mystery to me, but some of the folks who call into those shows demonstrate that they take it all too seriously.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Michael Savage is worse (or at least, as bad) in a cartoonish, over the top way.

But all these guys are of a muchness in that respect. Quite what people get out of it is a mystery to me, but some of the folks who call into those shows demonstrate that they take it all too seriously.

But the callers are carefully screened and selected before getting on the air to work in the talk show host's favor.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Of course. But those people still take that stuff seriously and their fringe views get airtime, as though they reflect the views of the host.

Why are dumbasses given airtime for their tin foil hat conspiracy theories?

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Not sure why we keep bringing in Rush Limbaugh as an example of the "Media on the Right".

He is not a news caster nor journalist.

Rush has no duty to report facts or present an unbiased view anymore than any other political talkinghead.

You're correct he's not a news caster or a journalist but he is a commentator and the discussion is on media bias and politics. Radio is a form of media. Rush is a conservative radio commentator on what is going on in the news in particular to the political parties and politicians have used Rush's show with it's powerful reach to conservative listeners to push their agenda's as well as use his celebrity during the Republican Revolution. Where do you think he gets his information, the news, where he processes it and regurgitates it from his perspective (aka his spin). So we start with Rush Limbaugh and we end with John Stewart. Historically Rush's radio talk show was the platform for television talk shows and both have caused confusion in what is bias media and a source of news. O'Reilly also comments on the daily news and creates his own news by going out and confronting people. Dateline NBC's to catch a predator is another example of a show parading as news when in fact it's entrapment. These shows aren't going out and finding news they are creating news. Thus showing their media bias.

Edited July 14, 2009 by ~Flower~

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Something that I found interesting is that so much attention is given (at least on TV) towards local news. Most of the news channels we get cover local news within a 100 mile radius or so (hence you get wall to wall coverage on some channels of car chases and water skiiing squirrels!) there's actually very little variety in terms of national news on the TV (flip between any of the national channels and they're all covering the exact same story at the exact same time), and what there is puts disproportionate emphasis on talking head commentators.

Its also a mistake to draw a big distinction between commentators and journalists as that line is pretty blurry when it comes to broadcast news. Quite a few of the primetime anchors indulge in it, something I never used to see on the BBC, for example. The only difference in real terms - is that some of the more prominent commentators are cartoonishly outrageous in their views.

[Peikko 1,575]

I believe the reason Rush was brought into this is because the person who wrote that big essay on the failure of the 4th Estate is a proud Rush listener and has said as much on numerous occasions.

No, Rush is not part of the press - if anything he is worse, given that he doesn't deal in journalism per-se and yet has this huge following. What that shows is that the fringe media (if Rush can be called fringe, personally I don't think so) is no better than the so-called "liberal mainstream media".

What a wasted and unoriginal segway. So what if I listen to Rush? I listen to a lot of political pundits. I never mentioned Rush in my posts, nor do I - unlike you libs - have difficulty telling the difference between a journalist, a reporter, a policitician and a political pundit. Rush this, Rush that, blah blah bleh. You are merely mimicking who you've been told by your lib leaders to hate and mock. Good grief! Can't yu see that there's no thinking involved in doing that?

Wow touchy much? Danno asked why Rush was brought into the convo and I obliged.

You have referenced Rush numerous times in the past - enough to convey the impression that you think fairly highly of him - regardless of whatever other commentators, TV news shows or publications you may or may not watch, listen to or read.

It is questionable however to go off on a big rant about the state of journalism in this country (on which I agree with you) and yet not address some of the worst elements in the media (talking heads like Rush) - and the influence that they have, and the impact they have on public discourse.

Exactly so, my sentiments exactly.

Not sure why we keep bringing in Rush Limbaugh as an example of the "Media on the Right".

He is not a news caster nor journalist.

Rush has no duty to report facts or present an unbiased view anymore than any other political talkinghead.

You're correct he's not a news caster or a journalist but he is a commentator and the discussion is on media bias and politics. Radio is a form of media. Rush is a conservative radio commentator on what is going on in the news in particular to the political parties and politicians have used Rush's show with it's powerful reach to conservative listeners to push their agenda's as well as use his celebrity during the Republican Revolution. Where do you think he gets his information, the news, where he processes it and regurgitates it from his perspective (aka his spin). So we start with Rush Limbaugh and we end with John Stewart. Historically Rush's radio talk show was the platform for television talk shows and both have caused confusion in what is bias media and a source of news. O'Reilly also comments on the daily news and creates his own news by going out and confronting people. Dateline NBC's to catch a predator is another example of a show parading as news when in fact it's entrapment. These shows aren't going out and finding news they are creating news. Thus showing their media bias.

Indeed, so it goes on.

Unless VW you had said something on the lines of you like listening to Rush because he's entertaining, but his opinions are hooey, but you did not. You revere Rush and his 'honesty'. Quite surprising as his values are really very, very different to the ones you profess to hold. So, as I said, your argument starts on a poor premise and falls flat on its face, spectacularly so for someone so, steeped in journalism and media. I have to say, I am quite surprised your little "I was a journalist" story didn't involve being dandled on the knee of some great journo name, but hey, I am not the writer of your script

Edited July 14, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't understand how any journalist can take someone like Rush seriously. Seems to be the antithesis of what journalism is all about, and what the 4th Estate is supposed to do.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Rush may not be a journalist in the classic definition, but, you can make the case that he is a defacto journalist based upon the format and audience of his show. How often do you see or hear someone quoting something that he said on his show verbatum as if it were factual journalism? Where I work, and where I live, I see a lot of it.

[Peikko 1,575]

If this is what the freemarket brings to media, god help us!

The only radio worth listening to isn't funded by advertising, but public donation, who knew?

Amended to add, talk radio - not sure about music radio, I don't listen to it enough.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How often do you see or hear someone quoting something that he [Rush] said on his show verbatum as if it were factual journalism? Where I work, and where I live, I see a lot of it.

Clear indication that it's high time to find a new job and move, buddy.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Bloggers are also not journalists, and citizen journalists are often not trained journalists, and documentary film makers are often not journalists but people take it as news because they are informing the people. Talk radio hosts with their own shows feel they are also informing the people. Some call them commentators and others refer to them as news entertainment shows. News entertainment shows are not real news but parades as news and it forces the real news to respond to them at times and often include them. Journalists including prime time networks feel it's their duty to sort fact from fiction. For example you might have seen on a news show, discussing the recent political situation, the anchor acting as a mediator with the inclusion of a political blogger/commentator and a Washington analysts for compare and contrast. Then the conclusion of the segment will end with the journalist sorting the facts from the two and giving a summary of their observation.

It's also not uncommon to see the news call upon iReporters who are not real reporters. They just happen to be average people who have an agreement to be a witnesses on the scene for the media. It's a way to involve and engage the audience through media.

Media extends to radio, television, advertising, public relations, journalists, film makers and all of them have an agenda. From the documentary films done by Michael Moore who considers himself informing the public one knows he's not a journalist and he has a bias which has an influence on an audience. All film makers, producers, directors, documentaries made for TV have an agenda or bias. Sometimes it's to entertain, sometimes it's to inform the public, and sometimes it's to provoke thought, and other times it's to persuade the audience. Think about how they put pictures to words, or sounds, and the message they are trying to convey. Advertisers are trying to sell you something. Public relations are trying to persuade you. Journalists are trying to inform you. And everyone has an agenda. That is why it's up to the individual to discern for themselves what are the facts being presented and what is opinion or what is the message behind what you are being presented.

Edited July 14, 2009 by ~Flower~

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

I should also include the "new media" which extends to the internet, iphones, webisodes, made of internet news packages, snack viewing clips, youtube, bloggers, oh the list goes on here but it is also a form of media. That's a whole other ball game.