Letters to the Editor
-
Taken out of context
I heard this and what Rush was alluding to was someone who was doing a hit piece on him with faulty data. As it was a reporter, Rush said he would turn the tables on him and do the same thing to him that the reporter was doing to Rush. The reporter backed down somewhat.
And this came from the idea that reporters think they are immune to the same tactics they use on other people.
Rush's point was...they AREN'T immune.
-
Anonymous
I think it's a bit funny that the person offering this justification is someone who posts anonymously.
I guess the problem is that Rush thinks that anyone who ever says anything unflattering about him is doing a hit job based on false information. So any journalist who ever did an unfavorable article about him would be - how do they put it? - "fair game."
Rush Limbaugh has made a huge fortune making himself a public figure, and he just doesn't like the fact that this invites additional scrutiny. There's a reason that the law distinguishes between public figures and private citizens when it comes to invasion of privacy.
But in Rush's defense, I'm sure he has never ever said anything hateful, crazy, racist or stupid. It's only those liberals taking it all out of context. If you read this stuff in context, you'll see that everything he says is really the proverbial wisdom of Solomon.
-
The Following From Rush's Oct. 15 Broadcast:
I am not going to tell you the story because I'm don't want to give it away, and I would have to mention names, and I'm not going to mention names. But there was a cover story on me coming out of one of the big news magazines, and it was going to totally mischaracterize me and what I do and how I do it. And we found out who was writing it and made a couple phone calls to the person writing it. And we said, "You know what? We're going to find out where your kids go to school. We're going to find out who you knocked up in high school. We're going to find out what drugs you used. We're going to find out where you go to drink and do -- we're gonna find out how you paid for your house. We're going to do -- and we're going to do exact -- and we're going to say that, you know what? You are no different than Al Goldstein. You both masturbate. You're no different than Al Goldstein, and you're both journalists, and so forth."
And the guy started screaming on the phone, just went -- "You can't do that." We said, "Watch us." And it changed the tone of the story by about 60 percent, I would say, from what it was going to be...
I thought the part about the drugs was especially amusing under the circumstances.
-
"Find out what drugs you used"?
I wouldn't call that just the pot-calling-the-kettle-black, that's full-tilt pathological hypocrisy, Rushie baby. That, of course, is the number one salient trait of the wing-nut set.
-
re: Anonymous
Picko
"I guess the problem is that Rush thinks that anyone who ever says anything unflattering about him is doing a hit job based on false information. So any journalist who ever did an unfavorable article about him would be - how do they put it? - "fair game.""
I believe what was said was that they were using false information. Given that, you don't think he would be in his rights to do the same thing to the one doing it to him? Basically, this just means that if you are going to do a hit piece on someone, you'd better be darn sure you're background is pretty clean first.
"Rush Limbaugh has made a huge fortune making himself a public figure, and he just doesn't like the fact that this invites additional scrutiny. There's a reason that the law distinguishes between public figures and private citizens when it comes to invasion of privacy."
Ah yes, but if the reporter or whoever is in the public forum as well, then they ARE fair game, no?
"But in Rush's defense, I'm sure he has never ever said anything hateful, crazy, racist or stupid. It's only those liberals taking it all out of context. If you read this stuff in context, you'll see that everything he says is really the proverbial wisdom of Solomon."
Never said this and WOULDN'T say this...just saying that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
-
You Know What, Anonymous?
We're going to find out where your kids go to school. We're going to find out who you knocked up in high school. We're going to find out what drugs you used. We're going to find out where you go to drink and do -- we're gonna find out how you paid for your house.
After all, anyone who contributes to a public forum such as Salon must be considered a public figure.
You betcha!
-
Boy...
Rush is sure being taken out of context alot lately, isn't he? Must be hard, having every word you say twisted out of context to further some political agenda.
Irony sucks, don't it?
-
"... they can slant it and taint it, smear it and lie about it ..."
Sounds like he's talking about himself and the Fox News cabal.
-
Oh yes, the whole eye for an eye thing
Anonymous -
"I believe what was said was that they were using false information. Given that, you don't think he would be in his rights to do the same thing to the one doing it to him? Basically, this just means that if you are going to do a hit piece on someone, you'd better be darn sure you're background is pretty clean first."
Well, but the person who said they were using false information was Rush Limbaugh himself - hardly an impartial arbiter of the truth or falsity of the information. Formerly, when a media bully wanted to squelch a story, they would just threaten to sue for libel - usually in British court, because it's easier to win such cases there. If the report was based on false information, the publisher would often back down because they knew that they would lose.
But what you seem to be advocating is a disturbing new trend in our public discourse. You don't like the editorial Joe Wilson wrote? Go after his wife. You don't like a child's advocacy of increased funding for a popular healthcare program? Go after his family. Pretty soon, everyone will think twice before speaking up about anything, because - as Rush bizarrely points out - we all masturbate, and we wouldn't want our dirty little secret becoming public, would we?
Apparently, you don't find this trend thuggish and sinister. Very well - next time I hear a conservative bemoan that our culture has been debased and lost its civility, I'll just remember geese and ganders and know that all is right in the world.