Limbaugh: an act not ready for TV(Smearing Arnold's not enough for the LATimes; gotta get Rush too!)

Los Angeles Times ^ | October 3, 2003 | Tim Rutten

[Timesink]

REGARDING MEDIA / TIM RUTTEN

Limbaugh: an act not ready for TV

Tim Rutten

October 3 2003

[...] Limbaugh's not-particularly-deft and utterly transparent debater's trick notwithstanding, what occurred in this case has nothing to do with sports journalism's purported political correctness and everything to do with what happens when provocateurs of his ilk venture too far outside the ideologically sheltered workshop of talk radio.

Over the past decade, the dripping-fang school of right-wing polemic has squeezed every other shade of opinion off commercial talk radio, in large part because station owners would trade their first-born children for a larger share of 18- to 34-year-old audience with which these shows are so popular.

One of the hallmarks of these commentators — among whom Limbaugh is a sort of über-mensch — is their irrepressible tendency to politicize every question, no matter the social sphere in which it arises. Hence the assumption that coverage sympathetic to the obviously struggling McNabb must be ideologically motivated. So too must be the objections raised to Limbaugh's comments.

Wrong.

[...]

[Timesink]

The full article is much longer. Keep in mind this is the same newspaper that lost THOUSANDS of subscribers yesterday for its perfectly-timed smear of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[Support Free Republic]

Strong Conservative Forums Help Prevent Candidates Like This From Winning Elections
	Finish Strong. Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Support Free Republic]

Strong Conservative Forums Help Prevent Candidates Like This From Winning Elections
	Finish Strong. Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[OldFriend]

I just don't see the 18 to 34 yr. old as Rush's audience.

Anyone listening to his show knows that it's a rare person under the age of 30 who calls in.

[Welsh Rabbit]

Over the past decade, the dripping-fang school of right-wing polemic has squeezed every other shade of opinion off commercial talk radio

ROTFL! What a hypocrite! A decade ago, AM radio was the only media outlet available to conservatives due to those liberal souls of inclusiveness barring any conservative point of view from network TV, public TV and radio, major newspapers, FM radio, and the early cable news channels. Long after Rush's highest rated radio show in history proved there was a huge market for conservatives, they still wouldn't budge. Their stubborness backfired though. After we made inroads into cable news and the internet, those who refused to balance their coverage suffered in ratings, proving Ann Coulter correct in observing that few people listen to liberals voluntarily if giving any other choice. If you liberal losers want a spot on the radio (other than NPR), you'll have to compete for the ratings. To quote Homer Simpson, "Welcome to the real world, hippy."

[Welsh Rabbit]

Keep in mind this is the same newspaper that lost THOUSANDS of subscribers yesterday for its perfectly-timed smear of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Wasn't Rich Riordon considering launching a paper to rival the LA Times not too long ago?

[goldstategop]

They'll lose THOUSANDS MORE for their smear of Rush. KEEP YER FILTHY HANDS OFF RUSH, L.A TIMES!!!

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Hey stalwarts, notice any similarities?

"the dripping-fang school of right-wing polemic"

Talk about projection.

Ya know, it is not hard to imagine what the rest of the article looks like (with thanks to the typically unwittingly shortsighted LASlimes and their forced-upon-FR settlement, few people here will get to see it), as I am sure the whole of FReeperdom imagines one couldn't've found three paragraphs that better exhibited the dripping-fang school of left-wing polemic.

Notwithstanding this Ed McMahonish lead-in line for our Johnny Carson types here ever ready to prove me wrong, the very use of the words "dripping-fang" found within the context of Mr. Rutten's screed almost defines tautology as never before. It should serve as a delightful exhibit of how not to pose an attack on character if the accuser does not wish to be tarred with his own words. < LOL >

So let me say from the perspective of just another amateur polemist, "I fear you lack the talent to truly leave our ranks Mr. Rutten." In fact, I think you may have enterred into a much, much older profession.

No, no need to thank me for my observation Mr Rutten. In fact I am saddened as to why your true occupation may be so obvious to me. Ya see, I have witnessed the activities of a greater number of people who are members of your oldest profession in the last few weeks than in all the time I've been on this priceless site. Their principles get off where their wallet begins. It was a very short trip. And they are as equally stupid as you are, as they have even stooped, in the last few days, to try to project that very same wallet image upon us. You, for your lame attacks, and they for theirs, are truly pathetic.