An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Air America Talk Show Host Randi Rhodes Suspension And The Vulgarization Of American Politics

ejejejejeje.jpg

We’ve said it before and we will say it again: some (but not all) of liberal and conservative talk radio is seemingly merging now into one big blur of partisan and intra-party demonization — and host and caller rage — that has little to do with political discussion or even show biz: and here, in the middle of Campaign 2008, we now see a glaring example of this in the suspension of Air America talk show host Randi Rhodes.

No, it wasn’t on the air…but it’s a symptomatic extension of the push-the-envelope, ratchet up the political rage talk show radio culture:

Air America radio has suspended talk show host Randi Rhodes for what has been described as an appalling rant against Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro.

Rhodes used obscene language in her choice remarks during a March 22 appearance in San Francisco, sponsored by an Air America affiliate station. In a statement issued on the liberal radio network’s Web site, Air America chairman Charlie Kireker said that kind of salty talk has no place in the political dialogue.

“Air America encourages strong opinions about public affairs but does not condone such abusive, ad hominem language by our hosts,” reads the statement by Kireker, issued on Thursday.

What did she actually say? Basically, she used a word that suggested Clinton and Ferraro are in the same class as the high priced ladies resigned New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer used to hang around with.

The Moderate Voice adheres to “newspaper standards” on language (although we occasionally slip). So we’ll pass on embedding the &%@$!-mouthed You Tube, but you can watch it yourself HERE. Enjoy.

There are comical — and quite serious — aspects to this story and what it reflects.

The Los Angeles’ Times blog Top of the Ticket gives this report:

It seems that another public broadcast personality — this time a woman — in the course of “entertaining” a benefit crowd for KKGN, the Air America outlet in San Francisco, called Sen. Hillary Clinton and ex-Rep. Geraldine Ferraro a whole lot of bad words having to do with prostitutes and what, we imagine, they’re supposed to do for that money.

She said that Clinton is a _____ ______. She said Ferraro is also a ______ _________. She also called someone a _____ ________. They are the kind of words and images that get huge laughs when high-priced comedians use them on the _____ stage in Las Vegas, which is a _______ town.

The speaker’s name is Randi Rhodes. (Spelling her first name that way makes her sound like a ____, doesn’t it?) She is — or was — the afternoon host on Air America, the “progressive” radio network that _______ and ______. It’s designed to compete with the much larger array of _____ conservative talk-radio hosts and programs that are ______ and _____. Seriously, if you listen to any in that ______ crowd you must be a ______ ______.

In a statement released today, Charlie Kireker, who is the _____ chairman of Air America, said the _____ network “encourages strong opinions about public affairs.” But apparently it does not condone words like ______, _______, or ______ when applied to public personalities, even if the speaker was _______ not on the air.

Kireker did not use the words _____ or _______. Or even _______.

But the network did suspend that _____ Rhodes indefinitely. Now she can go to work fulltime to support her candidate that ____ ______.

Yet there are some serious issues at play.

For one thing, there’s the issue of what most liberal and conservative talk radio has become.

Who ever would have thought 40 years ago (or 30 years ago) that so many Americans would find it entertainment to listen to an angry male or female host spend three entire hours a day badmouthing, demonizing and blasting the opposing political party and anyone who belongs to it? The only good guys (and gals) are the ones who belong to OUR party; all others have evil motives and are a threat to the country.

For another, Rhodes’ conduct, even though it wasn’t on the air(although it was at an Air America affiliates meeting, which shows she has no sense of corporate propriety), reflects the fact that in American politics (including blogs) some people consider themselves brilliant, witty and perceptive by calling those they don’t agree with names and cussing them out. Forget about points, politics, citing news stories: to some, showing how they feel rather than what they conclude and why equals serious discussion.

In reality, it’s symptomatic of not just the dumbing down of America, but also the vulgarization of America. There seems to be a rush to lower the bar on discussion of issues. And language? Language schmanguage, they’re only words. But didn’t ex-Seinfeld star Michael Richards say something like that when he sandbagged his career in a comedy club in Los Angeles? Words MATTER.

Rhodes increasingly fits in with a certain type of talk show host who gets great ratings by offering huge doses of partisanship and insults. She’s in the same club as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. But who are we to criticize? From the standpoint of radio professsionals, this style of show attracts big audiences that raises increased ad revenues. Once Rhodes’ suspension is over, she’ll get better ratings than ever. Notoriety sells.

Some partisans who don’t like Hillary Clinton will cheer her on — but they wouldn’t if Rhodes had done a #&! rant about Barack Obama. Just as some Republicans might chuckle at Rhodes going off on Clinton but they (and Bill O’Reilly) would be screaming and blogging up a storm if a similar rant had been a potty-mouth diss aimed at John McCain, George Bush or Laura Bush.

In reality, many American reserve their outrage for only when THEIR side or THEIR candidate is impacted, a manifestation of the divisions in America — divisions that talk show radio hosts are paid big bucks to foster, nurture and accentuate so they can draw more and more True Believers into three hour shows telling them what they already agree with and affirming how dangerous those horn-with-pitchfork, ill-intentioned folks on the other side are.

On the other hand, talk radio is playing an increasing role in the U.S. polity. Both left and right wing talk radio have now become vital broadcast town halls where those who have the same party affiliation and think alike can reaffirm their beliefs, get “psyched” to defeat the other side, and mobilize. It helps solidify group think — something needed to win elections.

But, most of all, it gets ratings in America, and the talk radio culture sound bite, mega-confrontational culture has now permeated American politics and the Internet.

Not all talk radio show hosts operate this way, but the ones who do set the Gold Standards for all talkers.

And they’re the ones — with their big audiences and big paychecks — whom aspiring talkers will likely and unfortunately emulate.

SOME WEBLOG REACTION TO THE RHODES SUSPENSION :

Pamela Leavey:

I’ve never been much of a talk radio fan, but I used to enjoy listening to Randi’s show occasionally, until I grew tired of her propensity to attack our own. The misogynistic screed in the video..is astounding, simply astounding.

Quite frankly I think Rhodes should be fired, not suspended. There’s nothing progressive about her in my book — she’s the liberal, female version of Rush Limbaugh on a good day.

skippy (who writes in lowercase);

we’ve enjoyed randi, harking back to her days in miami, and have always encouraged people to listen to her. but this sort of vitriol is the very thing we have been admonishing blogtopia and yes, we coined that phrase, against.

the last thing we need is dems v. dems.

—-Rhymes With Right calls Air America “Air Hyprocisy” and HERE’S WHY.

Allapundit:

This makes twice in the past two months that Rhodes is in trouble for (a) clearly joking (b) about something 90% of the public — including liberals, as you’ll hear from the raucous cheers when she says it — would have little problem with as humor in the course of private conversation. “But AP, she hosts a public talk show!” Yeah, for Air America. It’s like getting mad at Olbermann for accusing McCain of wearing Depends. If Ronald McDonald made a joke about Bush, would you lose sleep over that? As for whether this calls Rhodes’s feminist credentials into question, anyone who’s watched the left go after conservative minorities over their race should know by now that identity politics turns on ideology, not identity. Hillary’s not really a “sister” anymore; if she drops out and leaves poor Barack Obama alone, then — maybe.

Liberal Values:

My first thoughts upon hearing of this were along the lines of “Air America is still in operation?” and “Randi Rhodes is still on the air?” Beyond that, while I would not have used the same language and cannot agree with everything she said, at least Randi Rhodes does not fall into the mind set of knee jerk support for a Democrat because they have a D after their name, even when their views and conduct are very bit as repellent as the Republicans they seek to replace (and emulate). Maybe Randi Rhodes and Samantha Power can team up and form a successful act.

Wake Up America:

After all the outrageous things Randi Rhodes has said and did, she finally went too far even for Air America, an extremely far left liberal radio show, and that is saying something.

What did she do?

….Funny how everything else can go unpunished, but let her insult Hillary and her butt gets kicked to the curb.

Amazing that.

To keep updated on blog reaction to this story go HERE.

  • HappySurge
    But, Mr. Gandleman, she didn't say that on talk radio. She said it at a seperate venue...
  • joegandelman
    I made it clear in the quotes I used and in the post that this was not on the air. i'll further clarify it...if you didn't think I did it sufficiently, that means I didn't. Thanks for your feedback!
  • Marlowecan
    I don't think the venue is important. She is a prominent liberal known for her talk radio gig. Going off like this damages the brand.

    Sorta like Seinfeld feeling the need to do damage control for Richards because a DVD release of Seinfeld was occuring later that week. Air America had to suspend her.

    As a conservative, it is wonderful to see American liberalism implode in viciousness and ideological identity politics. But in a more important perspective, it is disturbing.

    Read the TNR story "Wiki Woman" about how HRC's wiki is regularly vandalized with appalling sexist slurs like " Sl*t " and "HRC got genit*'l h****s from s***king orangatan's *****" . The editors are exhausted from constantly repairing the vandalism. Obama's not so much. And get this...NO ONE is vandalizing McCain's.

    The level of abuse HRC receives is incredible...and gendered (see TNR story). I have joked here at TMC that she is the "Antichrist" etc. but it is appalling to see what political discourse in the US has become.

    Man, we are back in Jeffersonian times.
  • Holly_in_Cincinnati
    March 22nd? What took them so long?
  • Pyronite
    A quick Google search shows that this practice is, as mentioned in the article, far too common. Right-wing talk radio has been doing this and worse for a long time now, and making a living off of doing so. See Rush Limbaugh having already called Senator Clinton a whore during THIS campaign season:

    http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-20...
  • Marlowecan
    Pyronite...

    I dug further in Google, and there seems to be no other source for that allegation in the US News report that Limbaugh recently called HRC a "whore".

    Given our heated climate, I find it hard to believe Clinton supporters would not have raged about such a slur...leaving traces on the Internet.

    Moreover, the fact that Bill Clinton appeared on Limbaugh...I am sure his sources would know whether Limbaugh called his wife a whore or not...reinforces the likelihood this may be a false allegation against Limbaugh on the US News reporters part.
  • runasim
    This is really disturbing on so many levels., but at the end of the day, the most disturbing part is that even the reaction is partisan. Concservatives talk about it as if it were solely a liberal issue ("liberals imploidng") and vice versa.
    It really looks as if people, in all honesty, don't hear it unless tit's directed at them.
    When the venom is directed at their opponents, it is accepted without even noticing ; it sounds normal.
    That seems to indicate that hatred and demonization is in out blood, maybe in our DNA. At the very least, it's an addiction, much worse thatnsmoking pot.

    It seems to me, the language is just a symptom of a much deeper disease.
    When I think of the children watching and learning, from all this, I'm very alarmed.
  • I won't defend Rhodes on this. She typically rides the edge and this time she went way over it. I don't blame Air America for suspending her.

    That said, I read your blanket condemnation and thought about the many times I've listened to Rhodes when it was obvious she had done her homework, when she presented a detailed, factual, reasoned argument easily on par with what you might hear from an attorney or member of Congress. I remembered hearing Rhodes conduct interviews intelligently, skillfully and courteously.

    Finally, I remembered many times when Rhodes has blasted Democrats.

    Is that Rhodes all the time, every time? No. I've also heard her carry on like a nagging fishwife.

    My point is that Rhodes isn't the one-dimensional bash-and-trash artist you make her out to be. Capable of going too far, of being offensive in a mean-spirited way? Sadly, yes. But there's more to her and her work than that.

    I agree Rhodes deserves criticism and suspension for the specific incident cited. The rest is lumping her with the worst from Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage and others of their ilk, which is not accurate or fair.

    On the overall point about the low level of broadcast political discourse, I agree. Unfortunately, political talk radio is a mass-market, lowest-common-denominator medium where most listeners seem to tune in to stoke their own resentment.
  • vwcat
    From what I've heard, Ed Schultz does a decent and good political program on the air.
    He has never been accused of being vulgar.
    A few lights in that dark tunnel of the coarsening of our society.
  • Marlowecan
    Runasim said: "hatred and demonization is in out blood"

    But this is about more than just demonization. Was no one else struck by the fact that this story involves a woman...denouncing two other leading political women of our times...as "f**king who**s"?

    I know there was a post today at Huff&Puff calling McCain a "F**king Who**e" with similar lovely language...but the "Wiki Woman" story was fascinating for the fact no one is vandalizing McCain's and rarely Obama's wiki. The demonization brigades have their limites perhaps.

    HRC, on the other hand, is attacked and insulted in the foulest terms possible.

    Does no one else see a gendered aspect to this?
  • joegandelman
    Granted, I have NOT listed to all of Randi's shows. But I have a hard time sitting through her show because at times it really does remind me of a progressive version of Rush's. I think some progressive talkers -- particularly some of them at the local level -- have made the mistake of trying to be the "anti-Rush" and adopting his format but onl changing the ideology. Also, I AGREE with the observation that Ed Schultz does a great job. I love listening to Ed. I also love listning to John and Ken on 640 KFI in Los Angeles who are all over the place and can be conservative on some issues, more progressive on others. It's fun to listen to a broadcast where you do NOT know in advance every assertion the person makes. I can't listen to Sean Hannity since I can predict almost everything he'll say on an issue, who he'll demonize and what he'll try to white was. Today he actually tried to downplay the problems with the economy and pin it that the country wasn't in bad shape. I think Rhodes, like Limbaugh, is a HIGHLY SKILLED broadcast professional and I do listen to her when I am on the road or in an area where I can get her. I listen to them all. But I do believe she and others have made the mistake of becoming the "anti-rush" instead of just doing their own take on a talk radio show. My own view is for MY OWN preference, Ed Schultz has one of the best paced and varied shows, with KFI's John and Ken and KFI"s Bill Handle second. Also: a broadcaster who is really doing her own thing and in a delightful way is Stephanie Miller. Forget ideology, she's taking the form of talk radio and infusing it with comedy and iron. Some of it may not be perfect, but she's doing it and makes it a fun show to listen to.

    I think another point about talk radio. You can divide the shows into two types, which is really oversimplifying it:
    (1)Talk radio shows (left and right) that seem to be aimed at electing and defeating candidates.
    (2) Talk radio shows that are informative and fun and good broadcasting, which is why they get audiences.

    Now, Rush and Randi fit into BOTH. These are two broadcast professionals.

    Ed Schultz is a Democrat but his show seems a lot more about selling the product by getting and keeping an audience than turning his show into a vehicle mostly for a party (even though he is indeed partisan)

    PS: Rush said in an interview that he is all abouit getting, holding and expanding audiences.

    PSS: I originally wanted to BE a talk radio host and go into radio when I was in college. So I'm both a huge fan of and student of talk radio. (On the internet the tthree BEST blog talk radio hosts are Ed Morrissey and TMV's newest co-blogger Jazz Shaw and his coblogger at Middle Earth Journal Ron Beasley. There are other good ones as well, but these three I think could do ANY kind of talk radio -- including regular broacast).
  • joegandelman
    That has some typos. "Iron" should be irony, but I don't know how to edit on discus..
  • runasim
    Malrwecan asked:
    Does no one else see a gendered aspect to this?"

    Maybe that's because there is no gendered aspect to this.
    Women fight with each other because of boyfriends, because of envy, because of clicqueiness (sp?) and now, because of politics,.
    The trend is for more fights to become physical.
    More women are involved in violent crime.

    We've come a long way, baby, and whatever men can do, women can do.
    So watch it with your partner.
  • Joe, I generally enjoy and think well of Ed Schultz, also. If you listen to her, I think you'll find Air America's Rachel Maddow holds to a high standard, does her homework and although definitely partisan, does a particularly good job of presenting news and facts straight, then giving her take on them. IOW, not mixing fact and opinions so listeners can't be sure where one ends and the other begins.

    Thinking of Maddow and Schultz, my own comment above was more of a blanket condemnation than the medium deserves. There are exceptions.
  • runasim
    What would be really informative to know is what proportion of Republicans/conservatives are bothered by the excesse of the Limbaugh prototype and what proportion of Democrats/liberals are turned off by the rants of Randi Rhodes.

    In the world of my friends and acquaintances, these personalities play no part or they just occasionally check them out out of curiosity. No one I knwo reads DailyKos or the like.
    Is there a sane world out there whcih is simply non-participatory?

    Anyone?
  • Marlowecan
    Runasim said: "What would be really informative to know is what proportion of Republicans/conservatives are bothered by the excesse of the Limbaugh prototype ... Is there a sane world out there whcih is simply non-participatory?
    Anyone?"

    Well, I'm a conservative who doesn't listen to Limbaugh. I suppose I think there are better things to do with my time. My partner is a Democrat who likewise won't listen to liberal talk radio (altho, truth be told, she spits out obscenities among friends at any mention of GWB ...yes, Runasim, "whatever men can do...")

    I think among the American "chattering classes" (lovely British phrase, that) there is a growing extremism of discourse.

    Opponents are not just stupid, or corrupt...they are not evil and the worst person in the world.

    Of course, outside the "chattering classes" life goes on in its American way.

    Ask someone on the street who Randi Rhodes is? You will probably get the answer: "Isn't she that porno actress?"

    However, within the chattering classes, and the talk radio audiences, people are louder and nastier than ever.
  • Marlowecan
    Opps...meant "now evil and the worst person in the world". Too late typos.
  • hart_wms
    The idea that talk radio has vulgarized American media seems about 22 years too late to be timely. In that respect, I fear, this is a "dog bites man" story.

    What seems a "man bites dog" story is that this follows precisely the arc of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright story: post a no-longer-timely video on YouTube. Make sure it's just a couple of minutes of a longer piece (e.g. 45 minutes in this case) and THEN leave it to the Junior High School mentality of the "gotcha" MSM and the blogosmear™ to pass judgment without any context. As Wright became a "racist" so Rhodes is a "misogynist."

    And we all sniff ever so daintily as we sip our chamomile tea, pinkies extended?

    No: as Pogo said, We have me the enemy and he is us.
  • joegandelman
    YES. I have listened to Rachel Maddow. She DOES do a fine show. I can't always get her -- but I HAVE to say that when I heard her show I was greatly impressed as a former fulltime journalist over the homework she clearly has done. She has a talk radio shows that, no matter what you think on an issue, is actually informative. She is now deservedly rising on cable TV as well.

    I have an item on schultz I want to post today..
  • HappySurge
    No, Mr.Gandleman, I didn't mean by my earlier comment that you didn't make it clear, but rather, that you spoke of it in the context of what radio people say, when I do think, in this context, it's not something that she said during a talk radio programme, and so, I don't think you can use different mediums of speech to shed light on each other in the fashion you're doing.

    If Randi Rhodes said this on the air, then the case would be less of a stretch to make. But she did say it at a seperate venue. All that noted....Randi Rhodes long since made the decision to be a mediocre progressive comic rather than a radio host. If she is to get fired or suspended, it is to be on that point. Not on outrageous action, but clearly on the basis of lying about which pursuit she was after.

    Air America and Progressive radio should hire more folks like Maddow who retain wit, but not bile, who have actually made a decision about their career direction.
  • lurxst
    I thought Randi Rhodes was the guitar player for Ozzy Osbourne that died in a plane crash.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC