Letters to the Editor
-
Connecting the dot(dittos)
Does anyone see the relationship between the and the preceeding story about Wolf? They are willing to believe, without research or deeper inquiry, whatever supports their fundamental belief and that of their "base". FEMA plants questions to bolster their false image, and Hillary plants questions in her audience. All the tactics of liars and media manipulation. Wonder how Rush will spin out of this story. Probably blame it on Bill C. or Gore. It is always someone else's fault.
When does accoutability enter the discussion?
peace,
st john
-
Correction...connecting the dots(dittos)
this and the preceeding, not the.
apologies
st john
-
Thanks for the laugh, Salon
That was awesome.
-
Highlights the Obvious
Limbaugh has never been about truth. He is a pitchman for a linear agenda and searches for re-enforcing material. He is vulnerable to this kind of mistake for two reasons: He doesn't care if his content is true, and he and his are lazy.
He won't lose any sleep over this gaffe. He laughs all the way to the bank.
-
Lamebrain
Why check out stories that support my "ideology"? As long as I can rave on the air, mainly untruths. I am afterall a comedian that tries to make you laugh. Boy did I succeed. Love Rush
-
Oh and by the way
Thank you Salon for informing us.
-
Careful with this kind of trick
The authors of the bogus article apparently wanted to prove how easily the global warming deniers accept bogus arguments, without feeling the need to check them or even think about them. It worked, but it's a dangerous game. Here's betting that 90% of those who fell for it will never learn that it was a hoax, and will continue to consider this as one more "proof" that mankind is not causing global warming. People increasingly can and do read only those news sources that confirm what they already think, and this is especially true for the right (see War Room's next story). Limbaugh, for one, will not retract and most of his audience will never learn the truth.
-
Lefty black PR ops
When the hoax was revealed, some of the victims launched counterattacks, decrying left-wing "black P.R. ops,"
ROFLMAO. Boo-f#king-hoo. The character assassins, prevaricators, and mindless spin cloners are upset about "black" PR ops - when they're the target. Can dish it out, but not take it, eh?
I certainly hope there is more to come.
-
"Rare bit of honesty"?
You wrote, in "a rare bit of honesty, he [Rush Limbaugh] said. . . " Good for you for updating your file to mention that Mr. Limbaugh admitted he had been the subject of a hoax. I heard Friday that he had taken himself off the air for a day, as punishment for being hoaxed. I suspect that was a witty excuse for a planned absence.
But I've heard him speak often enough to question your assertion. The man claims to have been a prankster as a youth and perhaps he has perpetrated hoaxes since, though I'm not aware of them. But even a fairly critical listener--although I usually share his point of view, I remain skeptical of assertions, something learned during nearly a decade as a newspaper reporter--has heard nothing to sustain a dishonesty charge against him. He can be mistaken, because of ignorance: I recall him pooh-poohing damage to Iraqi artifacts--how old is Iraq, anyway, he observed--forgetting, or not knowing, of the long list of predecessor civilizations between the Tigris and the Euphrates, which include the Sumerians & the development of cuneiform writing, the Babylonians, the Assyrians--it's not for nothing that the region has a strong claim to being the "cradle of civilization," or certainly the cradle that led to our civilization.
But that didn't make him dishonest nor did it invalidate his general observations on the Iraq war. He talks about things that the press ignores, distorts, or falsifies. I can charge the AP and the New York Times with "a rare bit of honesty" and trundle forth a large pile of demonstrable falsehoods and bigotries. Can you do likewise with Mr. Limbaugh? Not all his claims are correct or as well informed as one would wish, but he has a better average for accuracy than New York Times editorials, whose opinions rest on shakier fact.
And he's not the "head Dittohead." A Dittoheard is someone who has heard other callers say how welcome Rush's words are, given the pile of propaganda that pours from the partisan press, so said, "Ditto" about what others had said in that regard, letting him get to the point of the call without tedious repetition--something that Rush surely welcomed, given how little, I suspect, he wants others to speak: it's his show, after all. And not all callers are "Dittoheads," with some dissenting from his views, globally, or others merely critical of some. I'd put the skeptical and informed aspect of his callers to be relatively high, especially since so many listen in order to escape the approach to the news they get from news radio & TV & newspapers and "mainstream" magazines and motion pictures. It’s hard for leftists, who grew up as “dissenters” from a prevailing culture, to understand they are pretty much the culture now, and it’s the conservatives who now play the dissenting role.
Perhaps I should not write any of that. People on the left tend to be clueless, as their swallowing of a false moveon.org claim about Rush and "phony soldiers" recently demonstrated. Why given them a clue? But people on the right, too, are prey to being gulled because of their preferences and biases--as the global warming hoax demonstrated.