« The Coming Gay Republican Schism?
Book Review: ‘Hitler’s Empire.’ He Was Good At War But Lousy At Governing »
Conservative Talk Show Hosts: Obama Had Little Or Nothing To Do With Rescued American Captain’s Rescue
While the vast majority of Americans of both parties, no party, conservatives, liberals and moderates came together yesterday to breathe one huge sigh of relief that U.S. Navy Seals had rescued Capt. Richard Phillips from the hands of pirates in a lifeboat off the Somali coast — and feel a sense of national pride — one segment of Americans was going on the attack:
Some conservative radio talk show hosts.
I got to monitor nearly 9 hours of weekend talk radio yesterday in a drive from Las Vegas to my home in San Diego — a trip longer than usual due to snail-paced Easter traffic. And most of the shows were not pretty as hosts expressed joy at the rescue but were on the direct or indirect attack against President Barack Obama.
If it hasn’t become clear in recent weeks, the reaction of these hosts made it clear: conservative talk radio has not just jumped the shark, it has jumped the pirate’s mast.
According to the AP, Obama did have a little to do with the events that unfolded:
President Barack Obama twice authorized the military to rescue a U.S. captain who was being held by Somali pirates and whose life appeared to be at risk, administration officials said after Sunday’s rescue.
The Defense Department twice asked Obama for permission to use military force to rescue Capt. Richard Phillips from a lifeboat off the Somali coast. Obama first gave permission around 8 p.m. Friday, and upgraded it at 9:20 a.m. Saturday. Officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations said the second order was to encompass more military personnel and equipment that arrived in the Indian Ocean to engage the pirates.
But on several shows from various cities (some local talk show hosts and national ones) these are some of the things listeners were told:
*An L.A. host said Obama really had little or nothing to do with the Navy’s action. The host said his sources said the Navy captain had standing orders to do what he needed to to save Phillips. He told listeners to ignore “some reports” that were coming out. It was clearly a reference to the above AP report — the implication being that it was inaccurate, a lie or just the administration trying to grab credit.
*The Navy was decisive and all Obama was doing was getting bogged down in jurisdictional matters – -dithering, and the Navy, in effect, acted when he wouldn’t. (The full story is not out yet, but most reports suggest close coordination between the Navy and Marines in the field, the Defense Department, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Obama, with the White House solidly backing military contingency plans)
*Obama merely wants to bring the captured 16 year old pirate back to be tried in the U.S. so the ACLU and other groups will get the justice system to go easy on him.
*Obama dragged his heels on this issue for days and it was only the Navy that responded in a decisive way — in effect dragging Obama along as it took the initiative.
*It was a “great victory for the Navy” and “indirectly a victory for Barack Hussein Obama.” This national weekend host repeatedly referred to Obama’s middle name.
On Saturday, driving to Las Vegas before the rescue, I listened to about 6 hours of conservative talk. Some were live shows and some canned reruns from the previous week. Conservative talkers were then lambasting Obama for not doing anything about the crisis, not using the Navy and not using the Navy Seals. Obama was sending a signal to the world that he was weak, to pirates that he was a pushover, was seemingly afraid to use U.S. military might, was indecisive…
It’ll be most interesting to see how conservative talkers handle this story today. Question: Must EVERY, single issue be turned into a raging diatribe against the guy who beat their candidate for President?
Talk radio has had an explosive growth in the U.S. and still gets great ratings in most markets — that is, except for most progressive talk, which you can find if you hire a private detective (and then it’s iffy).
But now conservative talk has gone to a new level or, perhaps, a new depth. It’s no longer just predictable in the ideas but in its consistent TONE which is invariably angry, demonizing and dismissive of anyone who doesn’t totally agree with the talk radio political culture conventional wisdom. It is increasingly lacking idea content and becoming a seeming nonstop grudge fest.
Conservative talkers are heavily promoting the “Tea Parties” on Tax Day — parties patterned after the historical Boston Tea Party.
But conservative talk is becoming so predictable now in tone and content that if this trend continues, the event that may most represent today’s over caffeinated version of conservatism may not be a Tea Party — but Custard’s Last Stand.
93 Responses to “Conservative Talk Show Hosts: Obama Had Little Or Nothing To Do With Rescued American Captain’s Rescue”
Not sure it really matters. The left is more concerned with what the right is saying then what actually happened. The right trys to neuter Obama for his actions in this and the left tries to neuter the right for saying something negative.
Flip………flop. 2001-2008 has just started over. Only the names have changed. Those once outraged are now cheering and those once cheering are now outraged.
What a great country driven by a cesspool internet and cheered on by a Main Stream Media who only wants to make a buck and have become nothing more then tabloids.
What a great day this is. The great Uniter, centrist, Moderate Obama has united us all as he seeks bipartisan support from the FAR LEFT and the LEFT. What? Huh? Independents? Moderates? Conservatives? Far Right? What is that?
Bah they don't matter. We all know they are braindead Americans.
Ridiculous reactions to events which should provoke only praise for all of the parties involved- from the ship's captain (who acted with extreme heroism) to the Navy Seals AND their Commander in Chief. These talk show hosts should answer one question- would you have refrained from criticizing Obama if the mission hadn't ended well, and saved your criticisms only for the Navy Seals? Of course the answer is no- there would have been no end to the comparisons to Jimmy Carter's botched hostage rescue attempt.
So far this has been a sticky situation played nearly perfectly; we now move in to the next phase and there may well be room for critiicism but these folks have made their opinions irrelevant since they're unable to give credit where it's due.
I do hope we soon see an end to the partisan sniping- both from the conservative talk show hosts and from the blogosphere regurgitating everything they say and attempting to portray them as the center of gravity of the right. These types should be ignored, but it seems to serve the purpose of the left and center left to continue the tactics begun by Carville and Begala, to stifle any organized opposition from the right by discrediting any conservative movements by portraying talk radio hosts as their leaders.
[...] unless you’re a right wing radio talker or ODS-suffering blogger (OMG what’s wrong with these people???), I bet you see it the same [...]
“Flip………flop. 2001-2008 has just started over. Only the names have changed. Those once outraged are now cheering and those once cheering are now outraged.”
Great point Braindead. This is what caused me to continue my protest vote in this past presidential election.
I do hope we soon see an end to the partisan sniping- both from the conservative talk show hosts and from the blogosphere regurgitating everything they say and attempting to portray them as the center of gravity of the right.
Me too CStanley. Those talk show hosts are not the center of gravity of the right. Yes they have listeners. Yes they have “followers”. But if they were the center of the universe of the right, which would make them serious player in all politics, we would have a very different country (for better or for worse).
Judging from much of the right blogosphere's manic output yesterday (and today), I agree with you CStanley. It's wholly unfair to pin this frothing insanity only on the talk shows.
To the extent that rational and mature conservatives of integrity and objectivity are susceptible to being lumped in with standard bearers like Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, Malkin and their myriad clones, then it is truly unfortunate and they have my sympathy. That said, if greater efforts are not made by responsible republicans to regain control of their party from that ilk (or even the perception of control) then they had better get used to seeing a continuing decline in influence. There is certainly room for legitimate criticism of the Obama administration, and it needs to be made if there are to be constructive checks and balances, BUT that criticism will need to be seen as coming from a credible place if it is going to be productive.
Beck, Savage, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, and their myriad clones are a cancer in the republican party, not an assett. These divisive, deceitful yet highly popular radio personalities have thier greatest appeal to A.) ultra-partisans who have already parted ways with objectivity, and B.) people who simply don't have the intellectual apparatus in place to discern between good and bad information. Neither of those groups are going to make the republican party any stronger or more credible, and it is the rational conservatives themselves who need to address the problem if they want thier party to not be viewed as a party of foaming at the mouth reactionaries.
Polimom, I think that's an unfair, blanket assessment of the 'right blogosphere'. None of the sites that I read regularly had anything that could be called 'frothing insanity'. I'm sure people can easilly find right wing sites that did have that kind of reaction, but that's par for the course in the blogosphere, right and left. I find it highly irritating when people leave comments like yours here, without citing which sites your talking about, because many of the readers will take you at your word and believe that's an accurate assessment of all conservative opinionators.
Polimom quallified her criticism by saying “much” of the right blogosphere–which I think is true enough–not throwing a blanket over everything and everyone.
To the extent that rational and mature conservatives of integrity and objectivity are susceptible to being lumped in with standard bearers like Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, Malkin and their myriad clones, then it is truly unfortunate and they have my sympathy. That said, if greater efforts are not made by responsible republicans to regain control of their party from that cancerous ilk (or even the perception of control) then they had better get used to seeing a continuing decline in influence.
The left was pretty rudderless for quite some time, and now the right is experiencing this. When there's a void in leadership, the vocal extremes (and especially, entertainers) end up filling the vacuum. I'd like to think that I'm one of the 'rational mature conservatives' you refer to, but there's just not a whole lot that people like myself can do without leadership (and even when people are banding together to speak out, ie, tea party protests- our political opponents are seeking to discredit that by tying it strictly to the faux leaders.)
What I find a bit amusing is that people on the left and moderate left now are using the technique that Rush Limbaugh masterfully used to discredit the left for years. A lot of you who probably never listened to him much don't realize it, but one of the main reasons for his success was his use of parody to ridicule liberals by highlighting the fringe foolishness. By making liberals appear to be followers of loony lefties, Limbaugh effectively made it embarrassing to be a liberal. Now, his opponents are using him and other talk show hosts to do the same to conservatism. It would have been nice to think that moderate left leaning centrists would be above stooping to Limbaugh's tactics, but apparently it's not to be so.
You'd still have to make reference to which sites (to attribute it to the ones that everyone already knows are 'frothers', just as we all know there is left moonbattery at certain liberal blogs) and do some kind of quantification in order to make that judgment in a fair manner, George.
I'm sorry, CStanley, that you are irritated. But so am I — and I did qualify my assessment with “much of”. I even posted so there'd be a trackback.
But I'm actually beyond irritated. I'm furious.
This was — IS — an inspiring moment. I'm extremely proud of everyone involved, from the incredibly heroic Captain Phillips to the military to the president. We ALL should be.
Clearly, PDS is alive and well. BDS was/is disturbing and mad. So is ODS. And it's downright revolting when displayed in the face of a truly inspiring event.
But you have a responsibility to direct the criticism at those who deserve it, without impugning others, Polimom. I'm sure I could easily find you half a dozen prominent right wing or right leaning bloggers who reported this straight up and gave credit where credit it due. Broad brush comments like yours prevent moderate readers here from even bothering to check, and those bloggers lose credibility as a result of your blanket criticism.
Those folks may well be wrong, but the polarity between your side and theirs won't dissipate if you constantly express anger and irritation when they're not 'with you'.
I don't have a “side”, CStanley.
Broad brush comments like yours prevent moderate readers here from even bothering to check, and those bloggers lose credibility as a result of your blanket criticism.
I'd be both surprised and disappointed to learn that the comments section is affecting somebody's credibility — much less that anyone's prevented from looking into things further thereby.
But you have a responsibility to direct the criticism at those who deserve it, without impugning others, Polimom.
I agree. I do. And I did.
I don't have a “side”, CStanley.
Then who are you angry with?
And I'm sorry, but a measly qualifier like “much of” does not make your comment accurate or precise by a long shot. If you have a complaint with specific blogs, name them rather than asserting that certain ones which provoked your irritation are representative of an entire side of the political blogosphere.
I'd be both surprised and disappointed to learn that the comments section is affecting somebody's credibility — much less that anyone's prevented from looking into things further thereby. It may be disappointing, but that doesn't mean it's untrue that people are influenced by what they read (whether in the main posts or comments.) If we didn't believe that the things we write have any influence, I doubt most of us would spend the time that we do expressing ourselves in this manner.
I do hope we soon see an end to the partisan sniping- both from the conservative talk show hosts and from the blogosphere regurgitating everything they say and attempting to portray them as the center of gravity of the right. These types should be ignored, but it seems to serve the purpose of the left and center left to continue the tactics begun by Carville and Begala, to stifle any organized opposition from the right by discrediting any conservative movements by portraying talk radio hosts as their leaders.
Allow me to point out, Christine, that you yourself invited Polimom's comment about the right blogosphere with the above paragraph in an otherwise great comment. And in fact you are mistaken when you write that talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck et al. are fringe figures and not the center of gravity on the right. Although it's true they *act* in ways that you might imagine would make them fringe figures, they are in fact NOT fringe figures. Rush Limbaugh, especially, has been almost totally embraced by right-wing bloggers and, even more to the point, by Republican *leaders* in Congress. Glenn Beck not quite as much — I guess acting out dousing someone with gasoline and setting them on fire is a bit much even for the currently configured right — but you will still find well-known, widely followed bloggers who do support him.
Moreover — and this is perhaps even more important — even when bloggers, pundits, and congressional leaders on the right do not explicitly express approval of what these extreme talk show hosts say and do, they do not, for the most part, disassociate themselves from it, condemn it, or even criticize it. If I'm not mistaken, Rush Limbaugh attended and spoke at CPAC, and if that's not a stamp saying that he is a mainstream, valued conservative, I don't know what would be. When the controversy about Limbaugh wishing for the president to fail was at its height, in the blogosphere and elsewhere, it pretty darn near became political suicide to condemn his remarks or even disagree with them.
I didn't invite anyone to distort what I wrote, Kathy. If Polimom had responded without sarcastically writing that she 'agreed with me', it wouldn't have irritated me (she's certainly entitled to her own opinion which differs from mine, which would then trigger a non-irritated response from me- but she's not entitled to claim agreement while stating an opinion that is much different than mine.)
Re: center of gravity- my point is that when a party is so clearly in the minority, it lacks real leadership and the fringes do become the most vocal and obvious. But, if moderates from the left of center want a healthier political clime they will refrain from giving those fringe voices more power than they deserve. It's fine, and accurate, to note that the right lacks a more serious spokesperson than Limbaugh right now- but what I see happening among 'moderate voices' goes beyond noting that and appears more like gleefully sticking a spear in the heart of any growing conservative opposition.
And sometimes the less respectable voices of a political movement have to serve as place markers. I don't recall a whole lot of criticism from the moderate left of Michael Moore, or Code Pink, or Daily Kos, or Keith Olbermann, Randi Rhodes, or MoveOn.org. I think that people who weren't happy with the tone and tenor of those movements knew that they couldn't cut off their noses to spite their faces. Eventually the Democratic party has found more serious leadership, but it didn't do so by denouncing the annoying voices on the left or having a litmus test ( I hear people hear sometimes saying that they can't possibly support conservatives because of Limbaugh, but they somehow never felt the same about his counterparts on the left.)
I don't have a “side”, CStanley.
Then who are you angry with?
My goodness that's clarifying. Apparently one cannot criticize unless one stands across some arbitrary line in the sand — a line helpfully (randomly?) drawn by others.
Not only that, but I've noticed at a number of sites that one cannot level any kind of criticism without being dumped (or welcomed) into a big labeled box… and while that's par for the course in some quarters, it's surfacing more than I remember on erstwhile “moderate” blogs.
And no, I'm not going to play this game by the new rules.
I'm not following you at all, PM. I'm simply pointing out that in your first comment, you didn't specifically criticize certain individuals who made ungracious comments, you lumped it into a criticism of the right blogosphere (even though you did allow for exceptions- but your criticism was still a broad one.)
So who is doing the 'labelling' or putting in a box, here?
And yes, when people didn't react on principle when they should have in the past, they will now be susceptible to questioning on their supposed principled opposition now. When principles are applied selectively, there's a betrayal of other motivation. I think that some people from the center left might now realize that they ignored things that should have been criticized before, or criticized unfairly when they should have been more principled- and anyone who owns up to that is fine in my book. I similarly feel that I should have become more politically engaged and should have seen what was happening within the GOP and spoken out against it sooner. But without some kind of self reflection like that, I'll continue to view what some are now doing as disingenuous.
Must EVERY, single issue be turned into a raging diatribe against the guy who beat their candidate for President?
Heh, welcome to the conservative's world from 2001-2008.
Anyway yes the talk show hosts are predictably spinning this against Obama and they'll keep doing this as long as it sells, which looks like a long time. My only criticism of Obama was his unwillingness to answer questions about the piracy incident until it was over, otherwise everything turned out fine.
CStanley I'm going to go out on a limb and say that while there are certainly some thoughtful conservative websites, personalities and blogs out there, the more partisan and vocal ones seem to be the ones driving the GOP right now. In that sense it might be reasonable to generalize since the ones making all the noise all seem to have the most power.
CStanley–
You know Polimom was trying to agree with you, right?
Do you actually disagree that there was “much” complaining about Obama's role in this in the right blogosphere?
Yes, I do disagree with that, George (and I don't think that PM seriously was agreeing with me- perhaps she can clarify whether she genuinely misunderstood me or if she was deliberately using sarcasm when saying she agreed with me.)
At best it might be close to 50:50 in terms of right bloggers taking a laudatory tone, and even among the ones who didn't there's mainly criticism that isn't 'frothing' but just some expression of relief that Obama didn't dither, or some pointing out that in fact he did have to be asked twice before giving the authorization. I think that's nit picking, but it's not beyond the pale to comment on the facts of how the event transpired.
CStanley I'm going to go out on a limb and say that while there are certainly some thoughtful conservative websites, personalities and blogs out there, the more partisan and vocal ones seem to be the ones driving the GOP right now. In that sense it might be reasonable to generalize since the ones making all the noise all seem to have the most power.
My gripe is that this is a completely self fulfilling phenomenon, DaGoat, when moderates continue to highlight the less thoughtful members of the right blogosphere and talk radio. And those same moderates are the only hope for reversing that trend, which I believe is in the best interest of the country.
What a shame that a joyful event that should unite Americans—and for which our President should receive at least a tiny bit of credit–has engendered such undeserved criticism by some on the right, and such a discord on our comments board.
When the events unfolded yesterday, I said to myself, now, finally here's something on which all Americans could unite and feel good about–how wrong I was.
“My only criticism of Obama was his unwillingness to answer questions about the piracy incident until it was over, otherwise everything turned out fine.”
This is called “Operational Security” You don't let the enemy know what your plans or intentions are.
This is called “Operational Security” You don't let the enemy know what your plans or intentions are.
Hillary Clinton and Petraeus answered some questions in a general fashion but Obama completely refused to discuss it. I'm not sure why that was.
I would have liked to hear from Obama that the US does not pay ransoms and demands that criminals stand trial, which of course turned out to be their position. Repeating the guidelines that the US has always followed would not have hampered security.
All in all though it turned out great so way to go Obama.
Nope. CStanley's quite right. I sarcastically leveraged her comment, and it was wholly in reaction to her last paragraph:
“I do hope we soon see an end to the partisan sniping- both from the conservative talk show hosts and from the blogosphere regurgitating everything they say and attempting to portray them as the center of gravity of the right. These types should be ignored, but it seems to serve the purpose of the left and center left to continue the tactics begun by Carville and Begala, to stifle any organized opposition from the right by discrediting any conservative movements by portraying talk radio hosts as their leaders.”
I was already beyond irritated with the right blogosphere at that point, and seeing a valid criticism twisted into something that “…serves the purpose of the left and center left… to stifle any organized opposition from the right…” put my dander right up.
In the interests of harmony CStanley, and with due respect to this blog and moderation, I apologize. I could have shared my frustration without using your comment to launch. It was simply handy.
OK- truce, PM! I can comfortably agree now to simply disagree with your opinion of the prevalance of nastiness in the right blogosphere on this, without any further irritation in the way you expressed the opinion.
With such loudmouths as Limbaugh, it isn't hard to take offense with their remarks. It seems as tho no matter what President Obama does, it never is right, in their opinion. Pres. Obama is commander-in-chief. Of course he had been made aware of the hostage situation with the pirates and had to make a decision. I am quite sure none of the recent presidents has been responsible for a hostage by pirates….nor an economic downturn in the country as it is now…nor so many people “hurting” in the USA. I feel he has repaired relations with several leaders of foreign countries, and we're fortunate to have him as president. Give him a chance. He's been pres. about 90 days now?
frustratedsr- I agree in the sense that neither Obama's supporters nor his detractors should be drawing broad conclusions from this one incident, even though the celebration of the outcome of the event is very justified. I'd think that Obama's supporters would guard against making this a 'Mission Accomplished” moment for Obama, since this is round one of what will be an ongoing conflict for security in the shipping channels.
I also apologize for misunderstanding.
Is there a way to alter the structure of these threads. I can't follow who is responding to whom? It looks like CStanley is responding to CStanley. Tyrone, this is probably a question for you since you know the technical side of things here.
my point is that when a party is so clearly in the minority, it lacks real leadership and the fringes do become the most vocal and obvious.
Not necessarily. It didn't happen when Democrats were in the minority (in fact, quite the opposite — Democrats were terrified of the “extremist” label from Republicans). And in fact, I don't recall the Republican Party ever being so rudderless and lacking in leadership and so dominated by the lunatic fringe as it is now.
And sometimes the less respectable voices of a political movement have to serve as place markers. I don't recall a whole lot of criticism from the moderate left of Michael Moore, or Code Pink, or Daily Kos, or Keith Olbermann, Randi Rhodes, or MoveOn.org. I think that people who weren't happy with the tone and tenor of those movements or personalities knew that they couldn't cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Well, Christine, the answer to that is simple: None of the blogs, organizations, or individuals you named (with the exception of Randi Rhodes, and she has no influence whatsoever) are in any way comparable to people like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. They don't preach hatred or mimic setting people on fire or stalk female bloggers and harass them with hostile questions while they are on vacation or lie on a daily basis about stuff that is so transparently untrue it can be debunked with just a few minutes' fact-checking. Having strong political views, whether left or right, is not that same thing as being factually and morally irresponsible.
Kathy
Thanks for pointing out the false comparison between those who CS named to the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck.
It's one thing to criticize based on facts, and quite another to base criticism on paranoia, lies, and cynical manipulation.
Kathy, your rebuttal and Hemm's seconding of it are strictly matters of opinion. And those opinions will differ wildly depending on one's perspective. I'm sure neither of us has the time nor inclination to do an accurate survey of blogs right and left over the past eight years, so we'll probably have to agree to disagree. I'll just throw out two examples to make my case though- was the left terrified of being labelled extremists in the wake of the MoveOn “General Betrayus” ad? And on the topic of female bloggers being stalked, can you deny the vile and threatening stuff that Michelle Malkin has experienced?
“My gripe is that this is a completely self fulfilling phenomenon, DaGoat, when moderates continue to highlight the less thoughtful members of the right blogosphere and talk radio. And those same moderates are the only hope for reversing that trend, which I believe is in the best interest of the country.”
CS
Why should moderates, or for that matter the left, NOT have the job of highlighting the nuts on the Right? Their form of criticism is not “less thoughtful,” its nut job crazy. The way to reverse the trend is for anyone and everyone to bring to light their hypocrisy, paranoia, and crass manipulation of “the facts.”
I know who mentioned a list from the left who you consider equally extreme, but I would be happy to have you show me where Olberman has acted in any way similar fashion as Limbaugh. What lies has he stated, what film has he edited to make its subject appear to say one thing when he actually said another? Let me know.
Wow. Firefight. Personally, I'm delighted that “our side”, the USA rescued the captain, wasted the pirates and sent a message (don't tread on me?). I applaud everyone involved, from the captain to the president.
I'm delighted that “your side”, the GOP is now loudly represented by its extreme-cum-mainstream pundits Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Beck, Hannity et al. The characterization of this as roughly 50:50 is frankly laughable. The audience represented by the extremes I mention far far surpasses any moderate elements of “your side”. The more these extreme heavyweights fume at our hugely popular president, the more I like it.
“My side”, yes, I'm an unashamed, unabashed liberal, has returned grownups to the government, intelligent, thoughtful people devoted (for the most part) to the good of the country, not to lining their pockets at our expense, and not constantly seeking to exploit and amplify divisions between us. (afraid I can't apply that to the Dem Congress yet).
I look forward to both parties continuing their current behavior as the sun sets on the pathetic GOP. May a new party, truly representing mainstream values, emerge from the ashes.
Why should moderates, or for that matter the left, NOT have the job of highlighting the nuts on the Right?
Because when it's done in an unbalanced, selective fashion it tilts public opinion (that was what I was pointing out, that this was Limbaugh's forte and it's how he helped tarnish the liberal brand and even the word liberal. When people don't have time to check out whether the accusations that this is what the right blogosphere in general is all about, they come away with that perception. For some left or left of center commenters, this effect is deliberate, I'm sure, while others (I'd put Polimom in this category) aren't intentionally trying to skew opinion unfairly.
I would be happy to have you show me where Olberman has acted in any way similar fashion as Limbaugh. What lies has he stated, what film has he edited to make its subject appear to say one thing when he actually said another? Both Limbaugh and Olbermann play the game of distortion by ridicule. Sorry, but I have no interest or time to play a tit for tat comparison of the two. If you'd like to delude yourself into belief that Olbermann and the rest of the gang at MSNBC are paragons of journalistic integrity, and that they only appear biased because the truth has a liberal slant, be my guest.
CS
You of all people should know that facts kind of matter when evaluating someone's opinion. Lumping people together in an inaccurate fashion because you don't have the time is rather lame. Either Olberman has unjustly ridiculed or he didn't. I'll be happy to provide evidence that Limbaugh has done this.
Your opinion is stated but unfounded. False comparisons drive the sniping that you said you deplore.
The characterization of this as roughly 50:50 is frankly laughable.
Then please show me how my statement is inaccurate in regard to the reaction in the blogosphere to the rescue mission. I never made the claim which you seem to be laughing at in regard to the relative audience size of certain radio and TV personalities.
The reason I'm unwilling to engage in this, Hemm, is that I've been there and done that with regard to this topic. If you want to do a short version of it, then go ahead and give me a couple of your examples about Limbaugh 'lying' and I'll show you how they're probably not lies but distortions, and I'll give you a couple of comparisons to some of the Olbermann crap.
In the end, I'll bet you that neither of us will have changed our opinion. This seems to be one of those cases where people can't even agree on the facts, so the opinions don't budge no matter how long we debate it.
I'm leaving soon so if you want me to respond to your examples of Limbaugh, Hemm, it'll need to be in the next 15 minutes or so. Otherwise we'll have to either agree to disagree or resume the topic at a later time.
OK, well, I do have to run but I'll go ahead and leave you with a couple of Olberisms if you want to respond to them. I know that he took statements made by Bristol Palin out of context from her interview with Greta van Susteren and made it seem that she was politically prochoice (in opposition to her mother.) I believe that Newsbusters covered that one.
And I recall that he also said that Palin cut funding for special needs kids, which Factcheck.org refuted.
I'm not sure if he was one of the many (which included the Obama campaign itself) that kept repeating, devoid of context McCain's statement about “100 years in Iraq” but I think he was part of that distortion.
And finally, even having a segment titled “The Worst Person in the World” and using that to highlight people on one side of the political spectrum exclusively, is itself a distortion based on selection bias. Any right wing commenter who did that would be immediately seen as using a soapbox to discredit the left, but for some reason you don't think so when a lefty is doing this? If Olbermann has ever featured a Democrat in that spot, I certainly must have missed it.
CS
As long as you wish to split hairs between lies and distortions, I'll pass.
What would be the point of trying to have a conversation wherein these two words lose similarity? “Because when it's done in an unbalanced, selective fashion it tilts public opinion,” it's a lie with a purpose.
And I so appreciate your concern that I am deluding myself. You know I've been worried these past eight years that I was missing something, that maybe Limbaugh et al had the truth I just couldn't see without their help. You've convinced me that the Right wing echo chamber distorted the truth for my own good.
Fair enough. I looked at a dozen “right voices” linked here and most didn't mention the pirate story at all. I'll take your word for the 50:50 blogger response. You have to admit though that the coverage from high profile and high audience voices on the right are what most Americans will be exposed to, not relatively obscure bloggers. I'm not trying to smear all Republicans with scorn because of the Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Hannity/Beck/Coulter/McCain/Palin/JoeThePlumber axis of lunacy. But that's how “your” party is coming across. I'm fine with that. May their shrill voices continue to characterize the GOP to voters throughout Obama's two terms. Meant no offense to you personally.
No offense taken personally, GD- it's just that what I keep pointing out is the self fulfilling part of it when you say that the right is currently being represented by the talk show hosts and such. That will continue to be the case if 'the right' is portrayed that way on sites like this one, because you've got to admit that when time is limited people are going to tune out to blogs which they consider to be hyperpartisan if they consider themselves moderates, and if the consensus here is that the right is hyperpartisan but the left isn't then people will get all of their news with a left tilt.
I'm back online if you have any more to add to this, Hemm. If you choose to drop it, I'm fine with that but you seemed interested in having me back up my assertions which I'm willing to do as long as it doesn't go round in circles.
I'm not really sure where to put this in the threaded comments so it will be noticed, but you've asserted a 50:50 statistic.
I wonder if you could show us how you derived that figure?
My you're in a good mood today, Hemm. I thought we'd had some good discussions in the past so I'm guessing I said something that ticked you off in this thread, but I can't figure out why. Is my opinion of Olbermann offensive to you for some reason? Do you really see him as a reasonable, nonpartisan commentator? You don't think that the comparison to Limbaugh is apt at all? That surprises me because in past conversations with most moderate left leaners, a lot of other people have agreed with me (they might find him entertaining, but they don't want to claim him as an honest, nonpartisan representative.)
And yeah, I am splitting hairs on lie vs. distortion because the latter is what I think both of these guys do. Why is it a problem to call a spade a spade?
Nope
I'm done with this as the hair was presplit.
LOL, I love the way you don't question Polimom's assertion of how she characterized “MUCH” of the right blogosphere (that was lauded as an accurate qualifier) but I have to show scientific methodology for saying that I felt it was a pretty even split.
Let's see, how did I derive it? I thought through the fact that I probably had read about a half dozen of the usual right leaning blogs that I frequent and hadn't seen anything offensive (and had seen some that were appropriately praising the action), and then considered the fact that there are probably about a half dozen rightie blogs that I rarely visit because they're hyperpartisan, but they are undeniably big players in the blogosphere so I was assuming that they were the ones that had annoyed Polimom.
So, I'm sorry to disappoint that I can't give you the standard deviation of probability of accuracy of my assessment, but it was just a personal guesstimate. You may want to ask Greendreams who did some checking and seems to agree that I'm not far off.