Limbaugh accuses CBS and NYTimes of trying to "influence" election !!

[kentuck]

But let's get one thing perfectly straight! Limbaugh and Hannity and their brethren would never try to "influence" an election. Rush, get off your silly ass horse and turn yourself into the auhorities and at least have the balls of Martha Stewart to begin serving your term. So what if CBS and NYTimes are trying to influence the election? They cannot be trying as hard as you are, Buttso...

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Oh, good heavens! He is such a Janus!

[Teaser]

19. Two faced...

and both them faces is ugly.

[Qutzupalotl]

24. Rush is an unpaid advisor to the Bush campaign,

as he proudly announced a few months ago. So, WTF?!

[JusticeForAll]

2. Where is Rush's outrage over Sinclair?

I don't get it.

[RubyDuby in GA]

3. Really? Ya think...

And I suppose what he does all day are public service announcements.

What a total buffoon! He gives morans a bad name :)

[FrankenforMN]

4. God forbid the print media try to ruin Bush's Fascist movement! n/t

[BattyDem]

5. The news organizations are actually reporting the news. How DARE they?!

:eyes:

[liberal N proud]

6. And he is non-biased?

[LiberalAndProud]

7. There is no scarcity of irony from Right Rhetoric these days.

First Bush tells Kerry not to speak precipitously without knowing all the facts.

Then Rush calls the kettle black.

Ironic: amusing in a sad way.

[kokomo]

8. Rush, don't worry! Paula Zahn will give you some free air time.

Poor Rush, everyone's trying to muzzle him and the reich-wingers.

[imax2268]

9. they are so desperate...especially now...

Rush and Hannity's bullshit is getting so deep it's not even funny anymore...I wonder if those two moron's can tell that they are trying to do the same thing...influence voters...

Rush...your an idiot...go do some more drugs and shut the fuck up...!

[hughee99]

10. So what if CBS and NYT are trying to influence the election?

Are you kidding me! I don't believe that this is true in this case, but if it were, you wouldn't find it disturbing that our "free and independent" press were manipulating the news to influence political outcome? The press should always be objective, unless it may benefit us? As far as Limbaugh and Hannity go, they are not "news", they are commentators. Some would call them entertainers, but I fail to find any entertainment in anything they say. It's one thing for a commentator (Limbaugh, Hannity, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes...) to try to influence an election, it's quite another for an "objective" news source to shape the information provided to the public in order to mold public opinion.

[kentuck]

11. They cannot be permitted to put in a fascist government.....

while we study our navel buttons. The Times and CBS are only telling people news that are backed up with facts.

[hughee99]

21. As I said,

I don't think Limbaugh & Hannity's accusations are true in this case. I don't think CBS and NYT are doing anything improper here.

However, as to the general statement "What does it matter if CBS or the NYT try to influence the election?", if we have a media who manipulates the facts, or selectively reports them (which again, I'm not saying is happening here) then it sounds like we would be on our way to fascism anyway.

Beyond that, from the standpoint of an argument, it's not a good argument to make, because
1. The fact that Limbaugh & Hannity do it, still doesn't make it OK for CBS and NYT.
and 2. It falsely compares the responsibilities of respected, objective news organizations (CBS & NYT) to the responsibilities of political commentators (Limbaugh & Hannity).

[MrModerate]

25. Here's the difference between NYT and CBS on this issue . . .

First, I can't pretend I listened to the Rush quote (my stomach's not that strong), so I don't actually know what the pigdog spewed out this time. But as ignorance of what someone said is no bar to Rush, I'll extend the same courtesy to myself:

The NYT has every right in the world to attempt to influence an election. That's why they call it (or perhaps more accurately "callED it") the "Free Press." However, CBS makes jillions of dollars using the public airwaves, and so is legally/morally constrained to not unduly favor one party over another.

We might note that Faux News, frinstance, is entirely (I think) on cable, and so is not constrained one whit -- there's no requirement that they be fair OR balanced, except if you consider truth-in-advertising rules.

[hughee99]

27. I agree

that while the NYT is different from CBS in that NYT doesn't require public airwaves, is there any rule that you can't use public airwaves to try to influence a political election? You could do a special episode of CSI where the killer turns out to be the president, and his political opponent helps solve the case. That would be legal. CBS's responsibility to be accurate doesn't come from the use of the airwaves, though, it comes from being in the news business. As does Faux, despite the fact that it isn't using free public airwaves. I believe that anytime someone claims to report the news, there is at least an implication that they are reporting the facts (and all the relevant facts). Now if a news organization reports the facts and that influences an election, that's fine. If they report some of the information to support the conclusion they want, and withhold other information that, while relevant, would not support their conclusion, then IMHO, that's not news... it's propaganda.

[hughee99]

28. BTW, welcome to the DU! n/t

[MrModerate]

29. Thanks for the welcome . . .

I've spent a long time lurking but the past several days the urge to post has become irresistible.

Sadly news outlets don't seem to maintain anything like the high standards you propose. Historically newspapers have often been the creatures/playthings of their owners, some of whom have been really wacko indeed (WR Hearst, for example), or of political machines.

For awhile there (70s to 90s?) it seemed like really big papers could rise above partisanship and fulfill a genuine journalistic/public service role -- but maybe that was an illusion.

I recall TV in the pre-cable era being very constrained -- fair to the point of dullness. These days dullness is the capital crime of TV news and your career is effectively over if you get accused of it. And of course, cable became ubiquitous, with people paying for programming (although they don't get to decide which programming appears on their cable menu), and infotainment quickly drove out all other forms of news.

And then the VRWC guys realized that Fox and talk radio -- if unopposed -- could give them control of the country. And they went for it.

Welcome to the 21st century.

[hughee99]

32. I agree with your assessment

of how things are gone in the past, and certainly Hearst is an excellent example of someone who was not afraid to make his point of view known through his newspapers. My fear, which seems to becoming more and more of a reality each day, is that the Fox effect will become the standard for all news organizations. By this I mean that they start with the point of view, then go out and get the facts, and then report only those facts that support that point of view. If all news organizations follow this example, then our objective media just becomes PR machines for various political groups, and much of the country will get it's information from whichever PR machine can get the most people to tune in. You would then have a large population of voters making their decisions based on what one PR machine says, and a small number of voter who will remain diligent and savvy enough to listen to the crap from both sides to figure out what is really going on. As the "informed" voter becomes a smaller and smaller minority of the voters, this can only eventually lead to the end for any democracy (yeah, I know, representative republic), no matter whose political viewpoints win out.

[tomfodw]

12. Unlike his impartial non-partisan Olympian overview

:::snort:::

Guess he's back on the Oxycontin...

[txindy]

13. Well, Flush is so shy, he hates to express an opinion himself.

I typed that with a straight face, too. ;)

[NJmaverick]

14. It's not like Rush is trying to influence the election

I am sure he would be happy, no matter who wins.

Then again FOX and Sinclair and Clear Water have all worked very hard to help get bush elected.

[lanparty]

18. Well thats different ...

Rush and O'Reilly (who is a moderate BTW :puke:) are "commentators" and "advocates". They don't have the constraint of being "fair and balanced". They aren't a primary new source. And they advocate the reading of mainstream media to get their press and information.


Yeah, whatever. They tell everyone that they aren't SUPPOSED to read newspapers. Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly will read you all the information you need thank you. No need for a "primary source". They are "fundamental sources". And if they get a few facts wrong ... SO WHAT. Everybody makes mistakes right??? Except when it comes to Dan Rather, when he makes a factual error he should be pilloried publicly!!!! And those Franken and Moore guys, they're just "rewriting history" (which they meticulously made up themselves)!!!

[AnIndependentTexan]

15. I have been trying to tell everyone this is their plan on spin

This is what the freepers wanted them too do. How come nobody ever listens darn! <<sarcasm>>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1182000&mesg_id=1182000

[lanparty]

16. Damn those liberals and their "facts" ...

In the world of the reich wing, facts are EVIL. Facts are the lowest form of rheotoric one can indulge in.

Even worse are facts that controvene the lies that they put together so cleverly. The Reich Wing is only a couple shades lighter than 1984. They don't want their false chamber of lies disturbed by those silly "facts"!!!!

I'm starting to believe that congnitive dissonance should be punishable by death!!!!!

[Zen Democrat]

17. I'm SHOCKED that there's gambling at Rick's!!!!!!

[fishwax]

20. The print media wants us to live in a fact-based reality

How dare they? Don't they know we've moved past that? </sarcasm>

[NoPasaran]

26. The facts are biased against Bush* n/t

[msanthrope]

22. Pot. Kettle. Black...go take more oxy, asshole...n/t

[giant_robot]

23. That's right. The truth WILL influence this election

Which is why Limbaugh and his ilk want to suppress the truth.

edit: typos, brainfart

[Rambis]

30. That fat tub of goo!

I can't stomach the guy (pun intended) I am glad somebody can listen but I can't.

[David Zephyr]

31. Kicking This Up For Kentuck's Kicking Limbaugh.

:kick: