By now I’m sure all of you are familiar with the letter written by Sen. Harry Reid, signed by 41 Democratic senators, sent to Mark Mays, the CEO of Clear Channel Communications, the company that airs Rush Limbaugh’s program. The letter accused Limbaugh of comments that were “an outrage,” “unconscionable,” “beyond the pale,” “outrageous,” an “affront to our soldiers [that] is beyond the pale,” “unpatriotic and indefensible,” and called on Mays “to publicly repudiate these comments.”
Although nearly all of the press coverage has concentrated on Limbaugh’s clever use of Reid’s letter to raise money for charity, and Reid’s pathetic attempt to claim some of the credit for the fundraising, I think this sad and depressing episode represents three serious problems.
The first is that neither the 41 outraged Democratic senators nor their staffs bothered to check the facts before launching such loud and damning accusations. Their letter was provoked, they said, by “Rush Limbaugh’s recent characterization of troops who oppose the war as ‘phony soldiers.’” In making this charge they were parroting accusations made by the liberal attack group, Media Matters, but even a modicum of fact-checking would have revealed that Limbaugh engaged in no such characterization of dissenting troops. He was referring instead to the well-publicized case of Jesse Macbeth and other war protesters who falsely claimed to be veterans who had witnessed atrocities. In doing so Limbaugh was not alone; ABC News, for example, called them “phony heroes” and “phony war vets.”Byron York has nailed down chapter and verse.
Second, even if Limbaugh had said on the air what the Democrats erroneously charged him with saying, or something equally outrageous, is it really the business of United States Senators to call on the head of a broadcast company subject to federal regulation “to publicly repudiate” the views of one of its broadcasters? Can you imagine what the response of these same Senators would have been if, say, Karl Rove had called up the publisher of the New York Times and asked him “to publicly repudiate” the views expressed in the OpEd by Joseph Wilson? And that request would not have carried any implicit threat, since the NYT is not subject to regulation by the Federal Communications Commission.
Were none of these worthies warned by a single lawyer on any of their staffs that demanding the repudiation by the head of a broadcast company of the views of one of their broadcasters, a private citizen, reeked of intimidation, whether or not it actually violated the First Amendment? There are four presidential candidates among the signers of Sen. Reid’s letter — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joseph Biden, and Christopher Dodd. Keep this letter in mind if the Democrats make a serious effort to revive the Fairness Doctrine. Based on this sorry episode, it appears that to them fairness means silencing critics.
Third, if these Senators did nothing more than read a script prepared for them by one of their interest groups, the mainstream media often does nothing more than echo the already echoing charges of their favorite senators and representatives. Thus the Washington Post today, revealingly in its Style section, breezily repeated as fact Reid’s and the Senate Democrats’ charge that “Phony soldiers” were “blasted” by Limbaugh.
Worse, the Post’s article treated the episode of Senators attacking the patriotism and competence of a broadcaster in a letter that could easily be interpreted as containing veiled threats to the company that distributes his work as no more than “[p]etty bickering.”
The Washington Post Company owns both radio and television stations. If 41 senators, including four presidential candidates, from a party that has been actively discussing revising the Fairness Doctrine called upon the publisher “to publicly repudiate” one of its OpEd writers or on-air commentators, I suspect the Post’s coverage would have gone beyond clucking in the Style section about “petty bickering.”
In one of his responses to Sen. Reid, Limbaugh asked rhetorically, “Sir, have you no decency left? Have you no shame whatsoever?” I’m sure this was an intentional play on Boston lawyer Joseph Welch’s famous and devastating comment to Sen. Joe McCarthy in the Army-McCarthy hearings, a response that did much to deflate McCarthy’s balloon and bring about his demise, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
Limbaugh’s implicit portrayal of himself as a victim of McCarthyism may be a bit overdone, but if so that would be more because of Limbaugh’s power than the behavior of the 41 Senate Democrats or their press acolytes.
ADDENDUM [October 22]
A good friend who is a close associate of one of the Democratic senators who signed Reid’s Rush letter wrote to complain about my post. Our exchange follows.
Friend to Me:
This is just good fun – I find Rush very funny – unfortunately I am not having enough time to follow his follies – Harry Reid is always way over his head on taking on Rush.
“Limbaugh’s implicit portrayal of himself as a victim of McCarthyism may be a bit overdone” – a bit overdone – (to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen)
I really knew some victims of McCarthyism, and Rush Limbaugh is nowhere close to suffering like a real victim of McCarthyism.
I also think “intimidation” is a little strong – Rush is intimidated by no one.
Relax, John – this is all just a Rush joke, and the only crime the Senators made was taking him seriously and taking him on – he loved it.
Me to Friend:
Of course he did not wind up a victim; of course he was not intimidated; of course he loved it and made hay from it; and of course it was a mistake for Reid et. al. to take him on. The only thing I disagree with here is your statement that “the only crime the Senators made was taking him seriously and taking him on.” If not quite a crime, that was certainly a mistake (by the way, I think the Senate condemning the MoveOn “General Betray Us” ad was also a mistake; the Senate doesn’t have any business responding to political attack ads), but it wasn’t the only one. For most of the Senators of the party that’s about to move back into the presidency, including the probable next president, to demand that a publisher/syndicator repudiate one of its broadcasters/writers/clients, which leaning over backwards to say the very least about it, at the very least has the appearance of attempting to silence a critic — not simply to condemn or disagree but to silence — not unreasonably reminds people of McCarthyism. The fact that Reid picked on somebody bigger than he was, so that the putative victim was not in fact victimized, does nothing to diminish the fact that the attempt was not only stupid but wrong.
Since no actual harm was done, however (except, I was about to say, to Reid’s reputation for fairness and straight-shooting, but for reasons I don’t have to spell out I don’t think his reputation after this foot-shooting incident is really any worse than it was before), I have only one more thing to say: Keep it up!
Friend to Me:
Stop it – moveon.org – rush limbaugh – This country is in deep trouble in large part because of the irresponsibility of Bush and the republican congress on the big issues like
U S place in the world
our broken military
Torture -nor bulldozing Abu Graib
soaring debt
no leadership on health care
hiding global warming
politicizing FDA and most regulatory bodies
Middle class economic struggles
……..
I can understand the desire of the republicans to want to focus on the other stuff – bush’s 24% approval rating shows that most americans understand what is broken in this country amd who broke it.
You are too smart to fall for this other fox news/rush limbaugh crapola.
Me to Friend:
I’m not the one who needs to hear this. Reid and the 40 Dems should have heard, and heeded, this advice before trying to pressure Clear Channel to repudiate Rush. All I did was comment on what your guys did when they, foolishly, took time off from saving the planet from Bush. But, hey, at least they didn’t do any real damage (at least not to anyone else)!
Friend to Me:
That is my point — Why pick this out to comment on with all the problems facing the country.
Me to Friend:
I comment on lots of things, nearly every day. But it’s not every day (you should be thankful) that 41 Dem senators give me such an appealing big fat target. Not criticizing this minor-league McCarthyism would be like not letting a kid break the piñata at his party….
Friend to Me:
sounds a little like fiddling while Rome burns – or spending time lecturing the kids on breaking the pinata while the other kids are burning down the house -or so on and on and on.
The real problem is not you, but this is what the republican party is offering up as real policy differences — but as I said earlier that is not a problem as it will help straighten some things out on 11/08.
Me to Friend:
Yes, but I don’t have a hose to put the fire out. If anyone does, it’s the Senate, and it was the Senate Dems, not me, who was doing this fiddling….
You can blame many things on the Republicans, but not this dumb and, yes, offensive letter.
Friend to Me:
yes — dumb (surely not offensive – abu graib is offensive, bringing the congress , and the president flying back to DC for terry schiavo is offensive, the bridge to nowhere is offensive, taking a surplus and turning it into a massive deficit is offensive, sending too few troops and not giving them proper armor is offensive….)
much more important is that it is a letter and it is irrelevant to the way 99% of americans live their lives.
Me to Friend:
Well, sure. 41 Senators trying to pressure a broadcast company to repudiate one of their critics is not as offensive as nuclear war, torture, global warming, starvation, or other Republican policies (issues to which they should have been devoting their attention), but the only reason it was less offensive than the similar behavior of the federal and state McCarthyite legislative gangs (which also didn’t affect the way 99% of Americans lived their lives) is that it didn’t work. That is, the motive and method were pure McCarthyite, and not describing it as such increases the likelihood of it being repeated. But I suspect not by Sen. Reid, whose proposed future forays against against private citizens exercising their 1st Amendment privileges may now have trouble garnering the signatures of quite as many other Democrats.
Moving on, as they say, with this as background I look forward to future debates over the Fairness Doctrine….
Friend to Me:
I have rarely read a paragraph with which I so totally disagreed — clearly my previous emails were a total waste of time.
Me to Friend:
…. If by “total waste of time” you mean that you didn’t persuade me that there’s nothing offensive about 41 senators (the vast majority of your party caucus) trying to have a prominent broadcast critic repudiated by his syndicator (in effect, publisher, who is subject to extensive regulation by the federal government), then I’m afraid you’re right.
Of course, by that standard my blog posting and my emails were failures, too. But for what it’s worth, since I believe all amicable exchanges of views are worthwhile (in part because increasingly rare), I don’t agree.
Friend to Me:
good to agree to disagree.
Me to Friend:
And at least in part (probably in large part) because I agree, you get the last word….
So, still friends….
John writes:
>>>”In making this charge they were parroting accusations made by the liberal attack group, Media Matters, but even a modicum of fact-checking would have revealed that Limbaugh engaged in no such characterization of dissenting troops. He was referring instead to the well-publicized of Jesse Macbeth and other war protesters who falsely claimed to be veterans who had witnessed atrocities.”
Really?
>>>”During the September 28 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, in response to Media Matters for America’s documentation of his recent description of service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as “phony soldiers,” Rush Limbaugh claimed that he had not been talking “about the anti-war movement generally,” but rather “about one soldier … Jesse MacBeth.” Limbaugh further asserted that “Media Matters had the transcript, but they selectively choose what they want to make their point.” To support this claim, Limbaugh purported to air the “entire” segment in question from the September 26 broadcast of his show.
In fact, the clip he then aired had been edited. Excised from the clip was a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of the 1 minute and 50 second discussion that occurred between Limbaugh’s original “phony soldiers” comment and his reference to MacBeth, the full audio of which can be heard here.”
(http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280010?f=h_latest)
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009
John, in 2007, technology is a wonderful thing. People who air their words can no longer try to whitewash and selectively edit their broadcasted material when there are other who can MONITOR and RECORD that material for review.
Perhaps THAT’S why many broadcasters, journalists and talk show hosts, particularly CONSERVATIVE ones, are so upset with groups like Media Matters, Crooks & Liars, Newshounds and other similiar online watchdog groups. They’re recording EVERYTHING, and they’re not letting things “slip through” anymore.
John writes:
>>>”Can you imagine what the response of these same Senators would have been if, say, Karl Rove had called up the publisher of the New York Times and asked him “to publicly repudiate” the views expressed in the OpEd by Joseph Wilson?”
Well, actually…I CAN imagine Senators asking for public repudiation of views expressed in the New York Times because–…well..it actually happened LAST MONTH.
>>>”WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 — The Senate approved a resolution on Thursday denouncing the liberal antiwar group MoveOn.org over an advertisement that questioned the credibility of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq…
…MoveOn.org, with 3.2 million members, has become a powerful force in Democratic politics and the advertisement it paid for, which appeared in The New York Times, has come under sharp attack from Congressional Republicans and others as unpatriotic and impugning the integrity of General Petraeus.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/us/politics/21moveon.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
John writes:
>>>” Based on this sorry episode, it appears that to them fairness means silencing critics.”
Do you believe that Rush Limbaugh and Moveon.org have the SAME First Amendment rights?
–Cobra
“Were none of these worthies warned by a single lawyer on any of their staffs…”
Um. not only are “these worthies” expected to have
at least a working knowledge of The Constitution, I have to ask-How many of these signatories ARE lawyers?
No excuses there!
Do you believe that Rush Limbaugh and Moveon.org have the SAME First Amendment rights?
Yes. I also believe that responding to a political ad, even denouncing it in the Senate, does not hold a candle to demanding that a publisher (for that is the functional relationship Clear Channels has with Limbaugh) “repudiate” one of its broadcasters. The first is political hardball; the second is an attempt to silence someone by having his platform removed.
As for the first part of your comment, I will leave it to readers to check the available record, including what you cite, and determine whether Limbaugh was characterizing all anti-war soldiers or only those like Macbeth who have been shown to have lied about their military record.
As for MoveOn’s infamous “General Betray Us” ad, I would have thought shame and embarrassment would have prevented you from bringing it up. But now that you have, interested readers should take a look at this discussion relating the debate over that ad to Reid’s letter.
Cobra – you are really missing the point – entirely. Limbaugh is a didactic bombast whose talent in holding an audience stems from his days as a baseball broadcaster. As with baseball – another 3 to 4 hour exercise – he fills the air time with iterative and simple messages that are not balanced and often are little more than screeds against the Left – not anywhere near the mindless screeds that a group like BAMN creates but nevertheless screeds all the same.
And 41 US Senators deigned it necessary to comment on the statements of this talk show host? Please. Don’t they have anything better to do? Whatever one’s political views, one can’t be heartened that our Congress is wasting time and energy on this kind of thing. Little wonder that their acceptance ratings are worse than President Bush, an executive I find astoundingly mediocre. Recognize the Senator’s greatest sin here – a royal waste of their time and effort – embarrassing, really.
The “Fairness Doctrine” cannot be restored in the tsunami of lies that followed 9-11. What is at issue is “Did our politicians play politics with our national security?” You bet we did. Condi didn’t see the future to accurately predict dead bodies would change the funding paradigm. All the lies and half truths told can be explained, but they will never be believed. Few in America would ever believe that our politicians could be so callous and continue reading as America was attacked while left defenseless. Where were our defenses on 9-11? Attacking America is such an emotional issue, there can be no fairness until the truth is told. Democrats have no chance without the truth. We were close, but no cigar.
John writes:
>>>”Yes. I also believe that responding to a political ad, even denouncing it in the Senate, does not hold a candle to demanding that a publisher (for that is the functional relationship Clear Channels has with Limbaugh) “repudiate” one of its broadcasters. The first is political hardball; the second is an attempt to silence someone by having his platform removed.”
So your definition of censorship is repudiation?
Exactly how does that work?
>>>”As for the first part of your comment, I will leave it to readers to check the available record, including what you cite, and determine whether Limbaugh was characterizing all anti-war soldiers or only those like Macbeth who have been shown to have lied about their military record.”
That’s the point I was trying to get across to you, John. Unlike in years past, everybody reading this can go, right now, to the Media Matters Link, and other watchdog groups, and listen to the ENTIRE SEGMENT, unedited, without the filter of the Rush Limbaugh’s damage controlling spin.
I don’t think you get it, though John. I don’t want to “silence” people like Rush, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity or Ted Nugent.
I want them to speak out MORE. Everytime these characters say something outrageous and objectionable, they are recorded verbatim, and rebroadcast to the HORROR of the moderate voters Republicans desperately need to win any national election, especially with a President whose approval rating is mired in the Twenties.
Limbaugh, whether he’s mimicking Parkinson’s victims, mocking children who need health care or bashing Blacks and Women is one of the best argument for voting Democrat, just like the more rabid anti-affirmative action types here post statements that promote my arguments far better than I ever could.
Case in point…
John writes:
>>>”As for MoveOn’s infamous “General Betray Us” ad, I would have thought shame and embarrassment would have prevented you from bringing it up.”
Again, from Media Matters, your hero, Rush Limbaugh…
>>>”On September 10, MoveOn.org’s much-discussed advertisement headlined “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” critical of Gen. David Petraeus, appeared in The New York Times. On the September 11 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called the advertisement “contemptible” and “indecent.” However, months earlier, on his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE): “Senator Betrayus.”
From the January 25 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks’ The Rush Limbaugh Show:
>>>”LIMBAUGH: Right. By the way, we had a caller call, couldn’t stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska. We got General Petraeus, and we got Senator Betrayus. New name for Senator Hagel.”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709220003
http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012507/content/truth_detector.member.html
Oh, the hypocrisy. In case there are some readers who are uninformed about who Senator Chuck Hagel is…
>>>” He served in the U.S. Army infantry, attaining the rank of Sergeant (E-5) from 1967-68 while serving during the Vietnam War. Hagel is a Vietnam War veteran, receiving the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge.”
http://race42008.com/chuck-hagel/
And Rush “escaped Nam service with a pimple on his butt” Limbaugh, calls Hagel “Senator Betrayus?”
Come on, John. Give this one up.
Willowglen writes:
>>>”And 41 US Senators deigned it necessary to comment on the statements of this talk show host? Please. Don’t they have anything better to do? Whatever one’s political views, one can’t be heartened that our Congress is wasting time and energy on this kind of thing.”
It’s actually a gotcha thing. I don’t disagree that it looks petty, but you have to understand, until next year, when the Democrats have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a larger advantage in the House, they really can’t get through the measures that the MAJORITY of the American people want.
–Cobra
Late to the party…Rush was also speaking off the cuff as he does for 3 hrs a day 5 days a week. The MoveOn ad was written, edited and approved by a committee. There can be no misconstruing the intent and meaning of the Petraeus/Betray Us ad.
Well, I’m confused. I was concerned when I heard Limbaugh edited the audio, but now, like JR said, putting the edit back in doesn’t seem to change much. I don’t like Limbaugh, but I have to side with him on this.
Please, no one tell me that Media Matters edited the edited audio!!!!!
Richard Palmer writes:
>>>”Late to the party…Rush was also speaking off the cuff as he does for 3 hrs a day 5 days a week. The MoveOn ad was written, edited and approved by a committee. There can be no misconstruing the intent and meaning of the Petraeus/Betray Us ad.”
And exactly what was the intent and meaning of Rush Limbaugh when he called a decorated Vietnam Veteran and Senator “Betrayus?”
Do you think it was a compliment, Richard?
–Cobra
Whoa! John!
Don’t give away the presidency yet. I think that Giuliani will beat Hillary. He’s a great candidate… and he actually accomplished something… he brought NYC back from the brink of gang rule.
If Bush has succeeded in pushing global warming under the rug (so to speak), then how come CNN, Discover and other stations continue to devote many hours of programming to this issue, while routinely neglecting to bother to consult those who think the issue is either overblown or bunk?
John’s Friend writes:
>>>”Friend to Me:
Stop it – moveon.org – rush limbaugh – This country is in deep trouble in large part because of the irresponsibility of Bush and the republican congress on the big issues like
U S place in the world
our broken military
Torture -nor bulldozing Abu Graib
soaring debt
no leadership on health care
hiding global warming
politicizing FDA and most regulatory bodies
Middle class economic struggles
……..
I can understand the desire of the republicans to want to focus on the other stuff – bush’s 24% approval rating shows that most americans understand what is broken in this country amd who broke it.
You are too smart to fall for this other fox news/rush limbaugh crapola.”
Wow!
Hey, John, when are you going to let your friend “guest blog” here? This person has a lot of great things to say.
–Cobra