On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 03:30:00AM +0000, Steven Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
> I was not going to comment on this thread, until Jim made the Rush Limbaugh
> Reference.
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> >>First thing, his snide, sniping tone tells me that he most likely plays
> >>fast and loose with facts. I don't much listen to folks who write like
> >>this, because they never fail to throw out a million "facts" that may or
> >>may not be true.
>
> Again, referencing Jim's observation, the same can equally be said of Rush
> Limbaugh. In fact, that is why I enjoy the commentary of both Michael Moore
> and Rush Limbaugh, each uses humour to point out the folly and foibles of
> the other side. Humour and satire is an effective vehicle to deliver a
> political message. To this date, we quote the political humour of Samuel
> L. Clemens.
>
Umm, I think there's a clear distinction in the tone of Moore's attacks
versus Limbaugh's.
>
> >>You could make a career out of trying to track down what they purport to
> >>be true.
>
> Again, oddly enough you are correct. I believe it is Harper's Bazaar that
> has a writer on it's staff to list the lies and/or half truths told by Rush
> Limbaugh for one of their Spring editions. I will list one lie below
> because it segues nicely to your other argument.
>
> I do not believe anyone so painstakingly vets the articles of Moore. That
> may be due, in part, to his smaller circulation rather than his relative
> accuracy.
>
HE ought to do it himself. He is of course not obligated to, but failure
to do so over time destroys his credibility. Unfortunately, many
liberals, like conservatives, swallow this stuff whether he's credible
or not, because he agrees with their overall view of the world.
>
> > And if even half of these allegations were true, do you imagine for a
> > second that they wouldn't be splattered all over the front pages of
> > every newspaper in the country, starting with the New York Times?
> > Absolutely they would.
>
> Again, no. As a rule, complicated financial crime makes for bad copy.
> People understand a stained dress. They do not understand complicated
> financial fraud.
>
Sorry, but such things _would_ appear on front pages all over. Moore's
accusations don't involve that much financial gobbledegook. And if you
vetted his stuff to take out the dripping sarcasm, the New York Times
(and by extension every other newpaper and network in the nation) could
run it as legitimate news. The fact that they don't tells me that much
of the data is supposition, unprovable, or downright false.
> I hate to turn this into a left v. right thing. So do not take it as such.
> But Iran-Contra makes for a perfect example. The Iran-Contra affair is
> extremely well documented but those documents are a mound of financial
> papers. You can go to your local library and find books that amount to
> nothing more than hundreds of pages of balance sheets that outlined the
> Iran-Contra affair. They made for poor copy and a difficult prosecution.
>
> Now here is that lie I promised you :) Limbaugh stated repeatedly that no
> one was indicted by Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh. In fact,
> there were fourteen indictments (I looked it up). Most of the 14 people
> indicted were either convicted or plead guilty.
>
> Now, how many people do you know that are even vaguely aware of what
> Iran-Contra was? How many people knew what color Lewinsky's dress was?
>
I can't speak to Limbaugh lying about this. I didn't hear the quote. But
Rush does distort some things. He likes to say, for example, that you're
paying unemployment out of your paycheck, as well as the full amount of
social security and medicare. As an employer, I know this is not true. I
also know that he knows exactly where the money's coming from, and he's
distorting these facts through some twisted logic to make a point.
Limbaugh's not perfect; he supports Microsoft. But he presents more
factual information per broadcast hour than I see elsewhere.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:07:08 EDT