Talk Show Host Randi Rhodes Explains Her Injury On Her Show
Oct 19th, 2007 | 15 responses
Yours truly is on a monster drive from San Diego in Southern California to the Sacramento area in Northern California — and yesterday got to hear the opening of the Randi Rhodes show.
Unless you were on Venus, the news cycle and the blogosphere were peppered earlier this week with a report stemming from comments made by one of Randi Rhodes’ colleagues (Air America talk show hosts) that the progressive talk radio’s popular afternoon host had been mugged while in New York City, possibly by someone with a political axe to grind. This wasn’t the first story involving a talk show host who was injured over the years…but it proved the most dubious in the end.
After the report circulated and blossomed into an ideological blog firestorm — with the tone of some (but NOT all) blog posts related to whether they agreed with Rhodes politically or not — news stories surfaced that there in fact had been no mugging and never was a police report. Rhodes’ lawyer denied there was a mugging too. It remained a strange story.
Yesterday, on her show, Rhodes went through what she said was the chronology, about how she was in NYC and was smoking a cigarette when she believes she was somehow pushed and wound up face down with many of her teeth smashed and her face a mess. According to Rhodes, she had no idea what happened, no concrete details of how she wound up face down on the pavement with bits of her teeth around her and she told her employer that she had been mugged and had broken teeth and would not be in the next day.
Sub host John Elliot then made his (in)famous comments suggesting Rhodes may have been hurt by someone on the right, a charge which was picked up by a blog which was widely linked to online…and by a zillion weblogs. (Elliot later issued an apology for going on the air and stating that assumption). News stories popped up about something happened to Rhodes.
Rhodes seemed most irked yesterday at the fact that a friend called her and told her to turn on TV and the Internet and that she did only to discover it was being said with certainty that she had been brutally mugged in New York City and that right wingers likely did it. She was aghast because no one had interviewed her and she herself had no proof that anyone on the right was involved or that she had indeed been mugged.
She found herself pursued by news and media photographers who camped out near her place and wanted a photo of her and her injuries, she said. And she seemed most angry that no media types ever asked her how she was feeling and wished her well — but only saw her as a kind of media commodity. They only wanted to get a photo of her injuries. One, she said, even asked her doorman if there was a secret list that would allow her to get up into Rhodes’ room.
Rhodes said it was a lesson to her in how the modern media works — stories go out with no confirmation written by reporters who don’t even ask how she is doing and the blogs go wild (but she expressed thanks to blogs who wished her well and seemed concerned over her health). She said she still has no real idea of how really it all happened.
Meanwhile, if you do Google Searches you’ll see there are other versions of what some say happened — all speculative, all using blind sources.
And its interesting to note that these blind sources that offer uncharitable explanations online as to what happened are people who seemingly don’t like Rhodes’ views. Everything is now so politicized in America that she is given the benefit of the doubt by those who agree with her, by some who don’t but there is a segment that will automatically offer theories that could be considered almost slanderous if offered about someone who was a non-public figure. It’s all part of the automatic discredit-those-with-whom-you-disagree style of American politics that has permeated the entire culture.
There are also other rumors and genuine speculation bubbling in the background — but that’s the nature of the infomedia beast.
And for now (unless a news organization or a well-funded supermarket tabloid picks up on it and says otherwise) the operative explanation of what happened is Rhodes: she believes she was somehow bumped or pushed from behind, fell down forcefully right on her face, let her employer know she thought she was mugged but never filed a police report, was aghast at media and blogosphere reaction and the way it mushroomed into a story stated with near certainty about an ideological attack -and she was back on the air after painful and extensive emergency dental surgery.
FOOTNOTE: Yours truly barely can post from this location so my own posts will be limited today and won’t appear until much later.
15 Responses to “Talk Show Host Randi Rhodes Explains Her Injury On Her Show”
Great summary Joe!
I might mention that in muggings, usually the purpose is to forcibly take something – money, purse or whatever. If she was intentionally pushed (something we’ll never know), that would be more akin to assault I think.
Look, Joe, I think this one’s problematic. Because before Rhodes spoke to the issue–really, as Elliott was on the radio spreading Rhode’s email message–someone emailed one of the bloggers covering this and said that she’d stumbled outside of an Irish pub, after consuming lots of Ketel One Bloodies.
It’s given color by the fact thata) Rhodes says she was drinking at an Irish bar, b) on an empty stomach, c) went out for a smoke, d) doesn’t recall what happened. I mean, someone who does recall what happened says she drank too much and fell on her face. Could happen to anyone who drinks too much on an empty stomach, without a coultergeist bumping her.
You know Joe, most of us were “there” during this imbroglio and you seem to have spun the facts in a highly sympathetic manner to Ms. Rhodes.
I don’t think anyone can blame the media here, unless its the left-wing talk radio and blogosphere for paranoia and mob incitement. We all found out about it after one of Rhode’s colleagues affirmatively stated that she was mugged by Dick Cheney’s goons. That story was perpetuated uncritcally by the sinstrosphere with accompanying spittle-laced vitriol against some imaginary vast right-wing conspiracy.
The MSM was the one to get out the correct story that she tripped and fell down. If you want to believe she was in fact mugged, then you thankfully have no experience with mugging. The fact that her teeth were broken speaks volumes–even if you are pushed from behind without warning, your natural instinct will be to protect your face with your hands. She should have had no worse than abrasions on her hands and arms.
How do you break your teeth in a fall? Going unconscious while you are standing up will do that. I’ll leave you to muse over what might have caused said unconsciousness.
I blogged the incident as did many others, and as is usually my habit, sought for other posts that I could link to. What I found among conservative blogs was completely rational incredulity at the horseshit the left was engaged in. Most went out of their way to wish Rhodes a speedy recovery and heart-felt sympathy.
It wasn’t a good day for the left, and objectively they collectively did not come across as people to drink beer with or partner with on a game show.
I think I agree with your sentiment, DC. If she leaves the matter lay without putting more closure to it herself somehow…….e.g. “I’m really not sure what happened…..maybe I was pushed, but maybe I was bumped, or maybe I just tripped, in any event, it happened , it’s over and I’m just trying to get on with life”……….she invites the wild speculation to persist…….and in light of one retraction already……..the speculation will likely gravitate to the more self-assisted injury hypothesis.
That aside, I think the best thing in the post is that Joe says you can accuse the other side of whatever you want…….and it will be swept under the rug……if only you apologize. Therefore, all you lefties are loonie-tunes! Although, I do apologize for saying so.
[...] think NOT. I mean, it’s about as likely as Randi Rhodes kissing the sidewalk without having been pushed in the back for NO DISCERNABLE MEDICAL …. Posted by Dan Collins @ 10:47 am | Trackback Share [...]
What Mick wrote.
With all respect to Joe, his colleague Dr. Estes had the most perceptive take on this business when she noted that it will inevitably assume the status of “urban Internet myth”.
Consider Entropy’s comment above: “If she was intentionally pushed (something we’ll never know)…”
Those on the Left in the blogosphere will be muttering darkly about this event for years to come. It will assume “second gunman on grassy knoll” proportions … as may be gathered from their HYSTERICAL (yes, CAPS are warranted) comments at the time on Left blogs about Nazi takeovers and civil war and bodies in the streets.
Apply Occam’s Razor: It is most likely – given the setting and circumstance – that she passed out from alcohol consumption and hit the sidewalk. Maybe she had a seizure like Justice Roberts, but given the setting etc. the alcohol explanation is the more likely.
The Left Gospel: Either (1) Malkin or Coulter were waiting in the shadows; or (2) Cheney had a hand in it (the VP having replaced Rove as the Left’s Evil Genius de jour).
As Dr. E prophesized, this ridiculous story will recur like CyberHerpes for years to come.
The comments illustrate the message in the post:
Those on the Lefti will
Those on the Left should..
The next entry will read:
Those on the Left should stop causing tsunamis.
The woman doesn’t know what happened.
No one knows for sure why anyone said or did anything.
Condemn those who speculate while indulding in speculation of the most blatant kind.
I repeat: no one knows what happened
[...] Joe Gandelman notes that many bloggers seem to be more busy speculating what happened to Rhodes (whether she was drunk or… drunk) than they’re reporting objectively about it. Although he’s right about that, this seems a logical reaction to me considering that some were eager to ’speculate’ that she had either been mugged by common criminals or attacked by angry conservatives only a few days ago. Yes, we’re all guilty of speculating. [...]
I’m with Domajot.
Mick Stockinger doesn’t have a clue about how people fall down from passing out when they haven’t been pushed or struck. But never mind, he’s done an exhaustive survey of left-leaning blogs and has rendered a judgment about what they all said — as opposed to all the heartwarming, kindly sentiments expressed on right-wing blogs.
No difficulty telling where he’s coming from. Perfect example of ideology/political bias trumping truth.
just a .02. In post trauma, we see many injuries from unexpected falls to the ground from a standing position. You’re right, if you see the fall coming, you might be able to try to protect the head and face.
But in an unexpected fall, it’s hard to override the instinct to ‘break the fall’ with one’s hands and arms.
A prevalence of injuries from sudden face-forward falls… can most often be to the palms, hands, wrists, arm bones, rotator cuffs… as well as, depending on the angle of the fall, often severe injury to the head and face, and sometimes to the ankles, feet, and legs also… again depending on whichever awful dance we were trying to do to keep from falling…
Sometimes the trying to not fall down can cause as much injury as hitting the pavement. That ‘trying not to fall’ dance can cause injury to tendons, muscles and small bones in feet and ankles, and larger aspects in legs, hips and spine.
Closed or open head injuries. There’s a saying amongst bikers that we can die on our bikes in our own driveways without even turning on the engines… simply by a sudden chinook and losing balance on that 600-plus pound bike, and falling over… because head injuries can be so severe to fatal, simply by falling from a height of 5 to 6 feet with velocity.
Falling from a standing position, even without a huge hulk of metal taking you down under its own fall-weight, is the same… a person’s head is literally being dropped from 5 or 6 feet height … fast.
With care, I think and hope Miss Rhodes, like others who have taken such spills, will recover soon.
dr.e
Doma, I know you are not as wild-eyed left as many here, but you are certainly well-read enough to know that, for example, the left has spent the last 5 years suggesting Bush gave the go ahead to invade Iraq only after getting a phone call from the Halliburton board.
To now say, oh the right is marketing unproven theories about a public figure on the left, is highly suggestive you have indeed lost your perspective as to what really is a middle position.
I guess I agree with Doma. No one seems to know what really happened, not even Rhodes. Anything beyond “we don’t know” is speculation pure and simple. There are many possibilities for what happened, but what is the point when none of them can be proven?
The sad fact is that partisans on both sides will give credence to the speculation that suits their partisan viewpoint.
For me, at this point, I could care less. She’s ok, it’s over and this non-story will be forgotten within days.
Casual=
“To now say, oh the right is marketing unproven theories about a public figure on the left, is highly suggestive you have indeed lost your perspective as to what really is a middle position.”
That would be true if I had said what you say I said, only I didn’t say that.
I said that no one knows what happened.
And I stand by that.
If I used skewed examples from the Right, it was only because they predominate the comments on this particualr post.
A hisorical examination of speculation since the dawn of blogs is way beyond my area of interest.
“the left has spent the last 5 years suggesting Bush gave the go ahead to invade Iraq only after getting a phone call from the Halliburton board.”
No, but they certainly got the call after the go ahead to let them know they get no-bid billion dollar contracts with little to no oversight in the cleanup though.