Asymmetrical Information

Internet bloggers, cable news pundits and talk radio partisans like Rush Limbaugh are indeed intent on promoting themselves. Any expense to the mainstream media is fringe benefit or collateral damage as you prefer.

can not resist.

You know what the basic unit of bullshit is?

One "Limbaugh"

Would this be in contrast to MSM reporters who are intent on proving themselves at the expense of the people they cover?

Spencer,

For the sake of thoroughness, if the basic unit of bullshit is a "Limbaugh", then:
10 Limbaughs = 1 NY Times;
10 NY Times = 1 LA Times;
10 LA Times = 1 Franken;
10 Frankens = 1 "Toady" Kennedy;
10 "Toady" Kennedys = 1 "How Wierd Dean"; and,
10 HW Deans = 1 "Goofy" Annan.

Thorley,

Enough of this "MSM" designation. What we are dealing with, for the most part, is the left tributary media (LTM).

I believe 1 KOS = 1 Pelosi. The symmetry is remarkable.

And as the press goes, as Clint's character said, "We've all got it coming, kid..."

Did Limbaugh ever claim to be a bipartisan objective reporter?

Nope.

"cannibalistic navel-gazing...fueled by Internet bloggers..." Quite the mixed metaphor for a professional writer.

If Kakutani means that journalists seldom defend themselves intelligently, then I waive the point.

So much of the WoT is a war of ideas. It is the media's war to win, defending freedom of speech, the right of women to be educated, the right to change religions or abandon one, the right to an honest trial -- values you would think they would be in favor of.

The alternative media is filling the gaps as fast as it can. I pray it is enough.

Most of the people who criticize Rush Limbaugh wouldn't recognize the sound of his voice.

Rush doesn't distort the truth. He doesn't cover all the news, like someone fair and balanced should do, but instead he covers stuff you may have missed in the MSM, like Clinton's self-congratulatory speech at the Rosa Parks memorial, inside info about the Kerry campaign, etc. and he does it all with optimism and humor.

Chris Matthews has less viewers than Bush's margin of victory in Florida in 2004. Limbaugh has 20 million listeners a week. Stuff it, libs!

If you aren't familiar with his work, this is a great and typical great excerpt which is also about Mary Mapes and the NYT book review.

Nice, Mr. Reid. Nice.

Limbaugh's virtue (and one could look at his website) is that he footnotes his screeds. Opinion is OK; conclusions, however flawed, are better.

Hate him or love him, the strange thing about Rush Limbaugh is that his prognoses tend to be correct. He characterized the Miers debacle, for example, as a Republican-base "clamp down" on Bush's feckless tendency to ignore domestic issues. On the media's egregious over-hyping of disaster in New Orleans, he said "If actual casualties exceed 5% of what's reported, I'll be surprised"-- the final figure was in fact less. He saw Cindy Sheehan for what she is, and predicted the duration of media fixation on her to the week. Limbaugh has a finger on certain pulses, and although I'm not a devotee, on issues of genuine significance, reflected in real-world outcomes, I have never known him flat, dead, wrong.

The classic instance, to me, was Election Day morning and afternoon in 2004. The media had Kerry by a landslide, McAuliffe was doing nip-ups. Limbaugh said slowly and clearly: "Exit polls are being skewed to hype Dem turnout. They are conducted by student interviewers who report their prejudices. When real totals start coming in at 8:00 PM, the whole charade will be seen for just the fraud it is." He had it pegged. There was not another commentator who thought this way, certainly no-one who dared stick his neck out in such fashion.

Give Limbaugh credit: He's smart, tough-minded, a realist with a sense of humor. If he makes a prediction, beware, because odds are high it will turn out as he says.

Don't even get me started about Craig Crawford...

And no, there's ain't much book in that book review.

"Rush doesn't distort the truth."

No, he just pushes conspiracy theories that the Clintons were covering up Ken Foster's suicide (which they were allegedly involved in) as murder, and that the 2000 Florida fiasco was some complex plot to put Hillary in the White House, supplanting both Gore and Bush '43.

He's the right's Franken. Alternatively, Franken is the left's Limbaugh.

I don't take either one very seriously.

On the other hand, I may take them more seriously than the idiots on both coasts who devour stuff like the originally-linked "book review." If they would only print that stuff on soft paper; then it might provide some service to consumers. ;)

He's the right's Franken. Alternatively, Franken is the left's Limbaugh.

Just wrong.
Limbaugh is well known to make generous charitable contributions from his considerable & well-earned (20 million listeners) income.
The most charitable description of a considerable portion of Franken's income would need to include the words fraudulent & overpaid.

RE: Limbaugh

The man is scary smart. I just wish that intellect didn't come as a package deal with that ego the size of the Goodyear Blimp.

But I have to take issue with John Blake's assertion that Rush called the Miers matter in advance. I listened to Limbaugh's show every day between Miers' nomination and subsequent withdrawl, and I clearly heard him walking back from his original position (unconditional support) to a sort of "healthy skepticism." Which leads me to believe that his powers of prognostication are grounded in his ability to sense which way the winds are blowing.

Oh. And that book review was crap, too. Nice analysis. Nice catch.

How on earth can one write this:

"Indeed, one of the favorite mantras of the current Bush White House and its conservative allies is that the media suffer from a "liberal bias" - a constantly repeated accusation designed to drill this notion into the public consciousness while putting the press on the defensive."

Shortly followed up with a conspiracy therory like this:

"This highly secretive White House has also tried to circumvent the mainstream press by limiting reporters' access, keeping President Bush's press conferences to a minimum and going over the head of the national media to local outlets (which tend to push less strenuously on matters like foreign policy and national security)."

and expect to be heralded as "unbiased"? Sheesh. It's increasingly obvious that the NYT stopped trying to win converts to its way of thinking, so much as just supplying its readers with what it thinks they want to hear.

"a phenomenon fueled by Internet bloggers, cable news pundits and talk radio partisans like Rush Limbaugh, who are intent on promoting themselves at the expense of the mainstream media."

What bull. No one involved in uncovering the CBS Memo Hoax did so out of any "intent to promote themselves". They caught the MSM red-handed trying to influence a presidential election with forged documents.

The author of the review ought to be ashamed and embarassed. Its bad enough that the MSM has lost so much credibility. Michiko Kakutani thinks his audience is stupid enough to be distracted by blaming the motives of the critics.

No, he just pushes conspiracy theories that the Clintons were covering up Ken Foster's suicide (which they were allegedly involved in) as murder

Um, that was Vince Foster, not Ken. His apparent suicide occurred twelve years ago. Twelve years ago -- that's your best shot? Pathetic. And while you might dig up (or even make up) some quote from that period that you can take out of context, while Rush discussed the controversy, he didn't blame the Clintons for Foster's death.

Them that apes Mapes makes dreadful mistakes.

Apologies to Kipling.

Big Brother Mainstream Media is falling apart at the seams.

Keith?

You're exactly right on Limbaugh. I also cannot begin to understand the common left take on him. He is demonstrably not what they say he is. And by demonstrable, I mean any given weekday - all you have to do is listen to the actual source -Truly bizarre.

Your link is just abnout the perfect example of his actual - stated, I might add - purpose.

Hope you had a chance to read "instapunkd"'s outstanding dissection of his critics of at least a year back. Anyone else care to assist in the archive link search - I'll make a stab...

This is true. One me equals six truck loads of turkey manure. 10,000 of those units equal one fat butt cheek of a Toady Kennedy, reduced by 16 cubic yard of Howard Dean fart gas. Das de way she be, bro.

Why do the people on the Left constantly whine about Rush Limbaugh while defending the indefensible (i.e., the obvious left-ward tilt of the MSM)? Once and for all-Rush Limbaugh is not a NEWSCASTER! He has a news and information program where he presents his own opinions. Of course, he believes his opinions are correct, and those of his opponents are wrong. However, no one can honestly state that Rush attempts to do a news program,ala (puportedly) the Nightly News, etc. This fundamental failure of the imagination is what is leading the left-wing melt down.

Kakutani gets really riled up when someone claims liberal bias in the media, like she did in her review last March of Ari Fleischer's (admittedly dull) memoirs:

"Mr. Fleischer also stays on message when it comes to griping about the media, echoing other administration members' frequently repeated accusations that the press is guilty of negativity, liberal bias and an obsession with conflict. In presenting his complaints about the media, Mr. Fleischer is highly selective in his citation of examples, often ignoring facts that might undermine his thesis or underscore the flip side of his assertions."

Her response? Ignoring the networks and focusing on the dueling shoutfests: "It's an argument that sidesteps the fact that cable news channels usually feature conservative and liberal guests in perfectly matched pairs à la 'Crossfire.' It's also an argument that shrugs off the very loud voices of conservatives on Fox News and talk radio..."

How about ABC, NBC, CBS -- the places where most people still get their news? Never knew ye.

http://www.timeswatch.org/twarticles/2005/20050301.asp

Her response? Ignoring the networks and focusing on the dueling shoutfests: "It's an argument that sidesteps the fact that cable news channels usually feature conservative and liberal guests in perfectly matched pairs à la 'Crossfire.' It's also an argument that shrugs off the very loud voices of conservatives on Fox News and talk radio..."

Agreed with you about Crossfire’s format. That show should have been canceled years ago IMO.

As far as the “perfectly matched pairs” goes. One of the primary the complaints I remember hearing in the pre-FOX 1990’s (it may go back further than that) is that outside of Crossfire, CNN’s idea of a “balanced” panel was usually three or ore panelists from the left/Democratic/liberal side and one from the right/Republican/conservative side. Alternative formats like talk radio (which is largely opinion rather than news) became popular in part because of this imbalance from networks like CNN.

"CNN’s idea of a “balanced” panel was usually three or ore panelists from the left/Democratic/liberal side and one from the right/Republican/conservative side"

Worse, the token conservative was usually some old has-been who couldn't argue a position if his life depended on it. And yes, thats why AM talk-radio took off. Kakutani should take a basic Economics course to understand liberal bias: if half your audience leaves your venue to set up a parallel marketplace of ideas, your product is junk.

"Kakutani gets really riled up when someone claims liberal bias in the media"

I get riled up that Micheal Yon is the only source for REAL news out of Iraq. She likely thinks Yon is a member of the VRWC. Our boys are performing heroicly, but their deeds go unsung because the MSM hates Bush, hates the war, and hates our troops. Kakutani and her ilk should be tarred & feathered.

For anyone who missed the Mapes interview with Brian Ross of ABCNews, the beauty part was when she repeatedly stated that vetting one's source was not the responsibility of the journalist but rather of the readers or viewers, nor that "proven to be true" was the standard to which a journalist should aspire, but rather, "not [so far] proven [evidently to the journalist's personal satisfaction] to be false." In the clips I heard, she didn't even seem flustered by how ridiculous these statements were, coming out of her own mouth.

Comments are Closed.