Limbaugh drug announcement

[JeffL]

Guy in the office next to me just came in the door, he said flip over to Limbaugh on the radio. Limbaugh just said that he has become addicted to pain meds since his back surgery, he has been in a treatment clinic once, and he was admitting himself to a clinic immediately after this broadcast. He said he's not a victim, he brought this on himself. He said he can't say much about the legal issues due to advise of counsel. And that he won't be back on the air until he's kicked this habit.

FWIW

[Jason McCullough]

Wow.

[DennyA]

And that he won't be back on the air until he's kicked this habit.
Glad some good came out of this, at least. :)

[JeffL]

Wow.

Yeah, and what's ironic in light of other threads - if not for a tabloid initiated potential scandal, I doubt he would have sought help. I imagine he realized that this was all about to break publically and this was the best course of action.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, I think that's what normally gets celebrities into rehab.

[Mark Asher]

I wonder if the Enquirer story didn't have something to do with his resigning from ESPN as well?

[XPav]

What this says to me, is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.

[Bub, Andrew]

I wonder if the Enquirer story didn't have something to do with his resigning from ESPN as well?

I think so. It happened on the same day he resigned. The day before ESPN's line was that Rush was offensive, but not racist, and was not going to be fired. I think this revelation sealed the deal.

[Jakub]

What this says to me, is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.
I hope. I hope and pray and hope and pray that there will be a judge and jury who will convict him and send him "up the river", in his own words. And then, as the trial ends, the judge will use that quote.

[Midnight Son]

It's just so sad when conservatives are exposed ONCE AGAIN as being just weak frail humans. Whoda thunk it?

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

What this says to me, is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.
I hope. I hope and pray and hope and pray that there will be a judge and jury who will convict him and send him "up the river", in his own words. And then, as the trial ends, the judge will use that quote.

PB County SA office has already investigated, but declined to prosecute ,IIRC, from our local newspaper's reports.

[Lizard_King]

It's just so sad when conservatives are exposed ONCE AGAIN as being just weak frail humans. Whoda thunk it?
It's so sad when leftists feel the need to parade the hatred and vindictiveness they usually conceal so much more successfully.

[Midnight Son]

It's just so sad when conservatives are exposed ONCE AGAIN as being just weak frail humans. Whoda thunk it?
It's so sad when leftists feel the need to parade the hatred and vindictiveness they usually conceal so much more successfully.

It's so sad when you come in here accusing me of being a leftist when I am a moderate. Of course, I'm left of you, but then so is the rest of humanity.

[Jason McCullough]

What this says to me, is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.
I hope. I hope and pray and hope and pray that there will be a judge and jury who will convict him and send him "up the river", in his own words. And then, as the trial ends, the judge will use that quote.

PB County SA office has already investigated, but declined to prosecute ,IIRC, from our local newspaper's reports.

How about that justice, huh?

[Mark Asher]

What this says to me, is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.
I hope. I hope and pray and hope and pray that there will be a judge and jury who will convict him and send him "up the river", in his own words. And then, as the trial ends, the judge will use that quote.

I did a google search and couldn't find any stories of oxycontin users getting prison terms simply for using the drug. They all seem to be either dealers or users who committed other crimes. It looks like the courts are being lenient with oxycontin abuse for whatever reason.

It will be interesting to see if Limbaugh continues to back the imprisonment of people who use recreational amounts of drugs. I don't see much difference between someone using crack, pot, oxycontin, etc.

[Dave Markell]

It's just so sad when conservatives are exposed ONCE AGAIN as being just weak frail humans. Whoda thunk it?

No, what's sad is blatant hypocrisy, which Rush has demonstrated in spades. If he truly believed in what he has been saying for the past couple decades, he would turn himself over to the authorities, provide them with complete evidence, and smile all the way to prison.

[Jason Levine]

It's just so sad when conservatives are exposed ONCE AGAIN as being just weak frail humans. Whoda thunk it?

No, what's sad is blatant hypocrisy, which Rush has demonstrated in spades. If he truly believed in what he has been saying for the past couple decades, he would turn himself over to the authorities, provide them with complete evidence, and smile all the way to prison.

Bingo! I don't despise Limbaugh for getting addicted to painkillers. I don't despise William Bennet for getting addicted to gambling. That just exposes them as ordinary human beings. What I despise about them is their setting themselves up as morally superior when they stand on feet of clay just like everyone else.

[Lizard_King]

Bingo! I don't despise Limbaugh for getting addicted to painkillers. I don't despise William Bennet for getting addicted to gambling. That just exposes them as ordinary human beings. What I despise about them is their setting themselves up as morally superior when they stand on feet of clay just like everyone else.
Right, I don't disagree with you on that. It's almost as bad as when those compassionate, humane leftists go into a feeding frenzy of spiteful ecstasy when one of these things happens. I bet we could go back and forth on this infinitely. :)

[XPav]

Perhaps Limbaugh after detox will get on the air, ruffle his papers, bang his mic on the desk, and say "Its the fault of this liberal permissive society that I wasn't sent up the river. I deserved to!"

Then he'd be consistent, I guess.

[Lizard_King]

Perhaps Limbaugh after detox will get on the air, ruffle his papers, bang his mic on the desk, and say "Its the fault of this liberal permissive society that I wasn't sent up the river. I deserved to!"

Then he'd be consistent, I guess.
That'd be the greatest radio moment ever.

[Jason McCullough]

I did a google search and couldn't find any stories of oxycontin users getting prison terms simply for using the drug.

Of course, that just bears the question of "why not." Crack users tend to get rather long prison sentences, don't they?

[Mark Asher]

I did a google search and couldn't find any stories of oxycontin users getting prison terms simply for using the drug.

Of course, that just bears the question of "why not." Crack users tend to get rather long prison sentences, don't they?

Dunno -- do crack users who don't have priors tend to get prison sentences, or probation? I guess Limbaugh isn't even getting the latter -- he's not being charged. He's lucky.

[Jason McCullough]

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/crack.htm

Crack cocaine is the only drug for which the first offense of simple possession can trigger a federal mandatory minimum sentence. Possession of 5 grams of crack will trigger a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence. "Simple possession of any quantity of any other substance by a first-time offender-including powder cocaine-is a misdemeanor offense punishable by a maximum of one year in prison." (21 U.S.C. 844.)

[Bob Cherub]

Midnight Son is a moderate? That's about the most accurate statement ever made since Clinton banged the podium and talked about relations.

I have never seen any post criticizing any liberal stance from you. If you're moderate than I'm a socialist.

[Ben]

5 grams is a fair amount of crack, Jason. Not to say that the crack vs. coke laws are anything other than blatant racism combined with political overresponse to sensational media, but 5 grams of crack is not what the average junkie would be carrying, unless he was an industrious junkie buying in bulk. That's at least several hundred dollars worth of crack.

Users very rarely get any prison time. A litte jail time, yeah, maybe some probation and shit. But unless you've got a pack of priors or law enforcement is out to get you, simple holding isn't sending you away whether you are Rush Limbaugh or Joe McCrackhead.


Also, Midnight Son, if you are such a moderate, what issues do you not hold leftist positions on? I mean, you seem to hate Bush(oh, I mean Boosh. Still funny, wow) as much or more than all the admitted liberals.

[Jason McCullough]

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/report_1998-10-01_1_page007.html

Ah, that is a big set of doses.

I thought low-level possessors did get jail time, though. If not, I rescind all my hoping Limbaugh gets prison.

[XPav]

I mean, you seem to hate Bush(oh, I mean Boosh. Still funny, wow) as much or more than all the admitted liberals.

Geez, that makes it sounds like we're all alcoholics or something.

Hi, my name is XPav and I'm a liberal.
Hi XPav!
Hi XPav!
Hi XPav!

[Tyjenks]

I heard him last week say he would lay it all out to his faithful listeners once he knew where things stood....for legal reasons he was holding off, of course.

Obviously, he was going to be outed and this was a pre-emptive strike on the rush to skewer him in the press.

It is all incredibly lame. He said this was a decision between him and his doctors. Riiiight, I am sure he was going to do this on this date whether it had made the papers or not.

He is not a victim. He is wrenching control of his life back from this evil addiction which he has battled for years. Yeesh!

My prediction: He will get done with re-hab, sucessfully or not, go back to his show, and will safely trumpet the same nutty crap to his nuttier masses of fans and they will accept him lovingly. All of this will have died down by then and no one will care anyway.

[bmulligan]

Ty, you're just mad because your nutty trumpet spewing nutty facts doesn't garner you $30 million and a bunch of nutty followers.

And Rush isn't exactly a political leader. He's more of a mouthpiece, or reflection of a conservative 'base'. People don't follow him, they just agree with him. I guess your leftist slant on Limbaugh blinds you from realizing that some people don't need to be 'led' by others, a belief your liberal leaders cannot fathom.

[Bullhajj]

My prediction: He will get done with re-hab, sucessfully or not, go back to his show, and will safely trumpet the same nutty crap to his nuttier masses of fans and they will accept him lovingly. All of this will have died down by then and no one will care anyway.

Until he spectacularly relapses next Spring. :)

[Jason McCullough]

Not "led" my ass. He distributes the GOP talking points the second they come down from the RNC.

[Lizard_King]

Not "led" my ass. He distributes the GOP talking points the second they come down from the RNC.
Uh, yeah, whatever. Still, "not led". On account of the fact that the people listening to him are still responsible for their own opinions. No different from the relationship you have with all your fruity internet blogs.

[Jason McCullough]

So what's "leading" then? Doling out orders? Do you think it's completely coincidental that Limbaugh and the RNC usually have the exact same talking points?

[Midnight Son]

It' s almost like, like, like a vast right wing conspiracy. (Of Dunces.) :)

[JeffL]

So what's "leading" then? Doling out orders? Do you think it's completely coincidental that Limbaugh and the RNC usually have the exact same talking points?

Dunno. He's criticised Bush pretty hard this year on a lot of his social spending. He's stated that he is very dissapointed in Bush trying to "steal" Democratic issues by pushing them. Doubt that came from the RNC. He's conservative, so there's bound to be a lot of commonality. But he has stated over and over (caveat, I only listen to him once every week or two) that this notion that the RNC sends him talking points is silly.

I knew when I posted the announcement the venom would spew - glad folks didn't dissapoint. (not referring to your comment, Jason.)

[Lizard_King]

So what's "leading" then? Doling out orders? Do you think it's completely coincidental that Limbaugh and the RNC usually have the exact same talking points?

It's called the magical miracle of them sometimes agreeing with each other. Holy shit. Could it be that a conservative commentator occasionally sounds like the (allegedly) conservative party? What is this world coming to?

There's a direct relationship between the things you say and the spiels of a whole lot of popular liberals. MUST BE A CONSPIRACY.

[Midnight Son]

ZOG chopper heading for ya right now!

[bmulligan]

Jason just can't believe that conservatives don't blindly follow like liberals. He can't possibly comprehend the notion that people think for themselves, as he suspends disbelief and rationality every time Daschle, Gephardt, Liberman, McCauliff, or any other DNC mouthpiece openes their mouth. He figures everyone else does the same whether their leaders are democrats or republicans.

[Midnight Son]

I won't mention who they were but the excuse was "Ve vere only following orders!"

[Lizard_King]

I won't mention who they were but the excuse was "Ve vere only following orders!"
Are you trolling yourself at this point? I can't even tell anymore.

[Midnight Son]

Indeed, you seem to be losing coherence. :)

[bmulligan]

Maybe it's rubbing off from the source.

[Midnight Son]

I sincerely hope there's no rubbing going on unless it with mah female friends, aight? :lol:

[bmulligan]

I didn't know you were a lesbian. Do they know what it's like to be with a real man?

[bmulligan]

Sorry, I can't resist replying to an idiotic comparison between Nazi officers and conservative listeners of Limbaugh. I thought it deserved a tasteless comment like the previous one. Sorry if I offended anyone except to that which it was directed.

[Midnight Son]

I didn't know you were a Village People reject. Stay out of my locker room, bwah! And don't look at me!

And how do you know any comments were directed at you? Overly sensitive a'la Mr. O'Reilly?

[quatoria]

Jason just can't believe that conservatives don't blindly follow like liberals. He can't possibly comprehend the notion that people think for themselves, as he suspends disbelief and rationality every time Daschle, Gephardt, Liberman, McCauliff, or any other DNC mouthpiece openes their mouth. He figures everyone else does the same whether their leaders are democrats or republicans.

It's amazing how you have the ability to suspend all self-examination whenever you feel the need to rail on "those damned liberals."

"Jason can't possibly believe that, UNLIKE THOSE DAMNED LIBERALS, not all conservatives think alike!"

When are you going to realize that you and McCullogh are two sides of the same coin? Try spending some time looking at yourself before you rail against others.

[JeffL]

Jason just can't believe that conservatives don't blindly follow like liberals. He can't possibly comprehend the notion that people think for themselves, as he suspends disbelief and rationality every time Daschle, Gephardt, Liberman, McCauliff, or any other DNC mouthpiece openes their mouth. He figures everyone else does the same whether their leaders are democrats or republicans.

It's amazing how you have the ability to suspend all self-examination whenever you feel the need to rail on "those damned liberals."

"Jason can't possibly believe that, UNLIKE THOSE DAMNED LIBERALS, not all conservatives think alike!"

When are you going to realize that you and McCullogh are two sides of the same coin? Try spending some time looking at yourself before you rail against others.

This is why I have stopped posting in this section as much as I used to - every thread seems to degrade into personal insults. I know that's simply a reflection of what politics in general have become, but it's just not the most interesting discourse.

BTW - oxycontin has become a HUGE problem in this country. It is incredibly addictive, and the high is much longer than, say, heroin or cocaine. On the other hand, it is sometimes the only pain med that truly remediates the kind of severe pain that various problems cause. But it has hooked a lot of people who would never get caught up in cocaine or heroine, and now doctors are becoming reluctant to prescribe it, even for people for whom it may be the only effective med.

[quatoria]

This is why I have stopped posting in this section as much as I used to - every thread seems to degrade into personal insults. I know that's simply a reflection of what politics in general have become, but it's just not the most interesting discourse.

Agreed. I'm quickly losing all interest in this forum, despite my intense interest in the Politics of the country. There are a lot of intelligent people in this forum, but we just don't seem to be able to talk *to* each other. Instead we talk at or past each other.

BTW - oxycontin has become a HUGE problem in this country. It is incredibly addictive, and the high is much longer than, say, heroin or cocaine. On the other hand, it is sometimes the only pain med that truly remediates the kind of severe pain that various problems cause. But it has hooked a lot of people who would never get caught up in cocaine or heroine, and now doctors are becoming reluctant to prescribe it, even for people for whom it may be the only effective med.

Believe me, I'm well aware of the reticence of doctors to prescribe an adequete course of pain management medication. It took me three years to get adequetely diagnosed and treated for my back. When I broke my arm a couple of years ago, the hospital x-rayed me, found the spiral fracture, stuck my arm in a sling, gave me a tylenol 3, and sent me home. Even doctors who had seen my back MRI's and knew I had three ruptured discs would only give me Ultram (which is woefully inadequete). It wasn't until I had found a doctor to perform the surgery on me that I finally had a decent supply of Vicodin to allow me to function in a relatively-normal fashion.

Hm, I seem to have somewhat veered off topic. The point was meant to be that I know full well how the addiction epidemic causes doctors to refuse to prescribe required medicine. The ironic part is, it's totally futile. There are now hundreds of websites out there that will prescribe vicodin with nothing more than a phone consultation, and send it to you via next-day air mail. So what's the point of making people suffer?

[JeffL]

This is why I have stopped posting in this section as much as I used to - every thread seems to degrade into personal insults. I know that's simply a reflection of what politics in general have become, but it's just not the most interesting discourse.

Agreed. I'm quickly losing all interest in this forum, despite my intense interest in the Politics of the country. There are a lot of intelligent people in this forum, but we just don't seem to be able to talk *to* each other. Instead we talk at or past each other.

BTW - oxycontin has become a HUGE problem in this country. It is incredibly addictive, and the high is much longer than, say, heroin or cocaine. On the other hand, it is sometimes the only pain med that truly remediates the kind of severe pain that various problems cause. But it has hooked a lot of people who would never get caught up in cocaine or heroine, and now doctors are becoming reluctant to prescribe it, even for people for whom it may be the only effective med.

Believe me, I'm well aware of the reticence of doctors to prescribe an adequete course of pain management medication. It took me three years to get adequetely diagnosed and treated for my back. When I broke my arm a couple of years ago, the hospital x-rayed me, found the spiral fracture, stuck my arm in a sling, gave me a tylenol 3, and sent me home. Even doctors who had seen my back MRI's and knew I had three ruptured discs would only give me Ultram (which is woefully inadequete). It wasn't until I had found a doctor to perform the surgery on me that I finally had a decent supply of Vicodin to allow me to function in a relatively-normal fashion.

Hm, I seem to have somewhat veered off topic. The point was meant to be that I know full well how the addiction epidemic causes doctors to refuse to prescribe required medicine. The ironic part is, it's totally futile. There are now hundreds of websites out there that will prescribe vicodin with nothing more than a phone consultation, and send it to you via next-day air mail. So what's the point of making people suffer?

I've actually queried a magazine about doing an article on these web based pharmacies - I wonder just how easy it is to get a prescription to something like Vicodin? It's hard to believe you can just fill out those forms and they'll take your word for it and send it.

[quatoria]

They do. Many of them even reccomend that you tell them you suffer from "chronic pain syndrome." They have no ethics whatsoever, and the "doctor's consultation" consists of phoning you, asking you to confirm your data and your injuries. I used one a few months ago, when I was in too much pain to make the drive to my doctor's office to get a refill of vicodin. It was pathetically easy. You don't even have to give them the name of a family practicioner for them to get medical records. They just don't care - they want your money, period.

[JeffL]

Wow - that does surprise me. Perhaps this will be a better article than I suspected.

[quatoria]

If you need sources, you're welcome to drop me a line. It surprised me how lax they were, frankly. The only standard they adhere to is one that I assume is federally mandated - you can only purchase addictive drugs once a month. Has to be a 30 day wait before refilling your vicodin scrip. Not that it matters, since you can just hop on down the web to the next pill pusher, if you need it sooner. They sell everything from tylenol 3 to 90-pill beakers of Vicodin 10/325, which is about as potent as it gets, below Oxycontin.

[Tyjenks]

Ty, you're just mad because your nutty trumpet spewing nutty facts doesn't garner you $30 million and a bunch of nutty followers.

And Rush isn't exactly a political leader. He's more of a mouthpiece, or reflection of a conservative 'base'. People don't follow him, they just agree with him. I guess your leftist slant on Limbaugh blinds you from realizing that some people don't need to be 'led' by others, a belief your liberal leaders cannot fathom.

Hooray! Now I have been labelled as having a leftist slant and having right wing views at different times on this board. Does this prove that I am actually in the middle or do I have to be branded as one or the other at all times?

I know he just echoes what his listeners already believe and that that is why he is so successful. 20% or 30% (or whatever) of this country can be counted on to agree with whatever comes out of his mouth as long as it is has far right leanings. Preaching to the choir can get you very far on talk radio nowadays. I simply do not find it entertaining in the least and do not think he believes half of what he is saying.

I think he is playing the character of a right wing idealogue on his show and the fact that people believe he is telling it like it is irritates me. He is not the one that bothers me so much as the "dittoheads" (ugh, is that annoying) who will accept him at his word no matter what excuse he gives even if he is caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.

[Midnight Son]

Hey man, do they have any, uh, herbal drugs for glaucoma, man? :D

[Jason McCullough]

Lord, I'm not saying conservatives slavishly follow the line as doled out by Rush, doing a 180 in the middle of a conversation if he changes his mind. He's just part of the organized way the conservative media "argues" a subject. The RNC, conservative think tanks, GOP politicians with ideas, etc. send around talking points and friendly outlets use them as guidelines in a way with no parallel in the "regular" (CNN, washington post) media.

He's not a "independent journalist" or "independent commentator" by any reasonable definition. Nothing wrong with that, but he's not some free-minded thinker that just *happens* to agree with the GOP all the time - unless they're not being conservative enough for him.

For example, the entire conservative media (Rush, Weekly Standard, NR, Fox, etc.) simultanouesly started comparing Tom Daschle to Saddam Hussein last year during the Iraq war debates. A few days before that the RNC sent out a fax talking about the effectiveness of doing it, so I don't think it's coincidental.

[Lizard_King]

The RNC, conservative think tanks, GOP politicians with ideas, etc. send around talking points and friendly outlets use them as guidelines in a way with no parallel in the "regular" (CNN, washington post) media.
Interesting that the logical opposite of conservative media is the "regular" media. What could that mean?

He's not a "independent journalist" or "independent commentator" by any reasonable definition. Nothing wrong with that, but he's not some free-minded thinker that just *happens* to agree with the GOP all the time - unless they're not being conservative enough for him.
That doesn't even begin to make sense. Your reasonable definition rules out anyone who agrees with people that you don't. Now, I don't relish defending Rush, but he is at least as independent as any equivalent talking head of that magnitude, on the tv or otherwise.

For example, the entire conservative media (Rush, Weekly Standard, NR, Fox, etc.) simultanouesly started comparing Tom Daschle to Saddam Hussein last year during the Iraq war debates. A few days before that the RNC sent out a fax talking about the effectiveness of doing it, so I don't think it's coincidental.
BUSH=MONKEY PUPPET. NO BLOOD FOR OIL. Coincidence? I THINK NOT. IT'S A CONSPIRACY.

[Jason McCullough]

Interesting that the logical opposite of conservative media is the "regular" media. What could that mean?

It means that the "regular" media actually sort of tries to be balanced.

[Bob Cherub]

CNN balanced.

ROFLMAOLOLOMGHOLY

Next you're gonna tell me that Rosie O'Donnell isn't a fat lesbo.

[Jason McCullough]

They're not perfect, but they do a damn sight better at being real journalists - you know, presenting all sides of the issue to the viewer - than Fox does.

[JeffL]

They're not perfect, but they do a damn sight better at being real journalists - you know, presenting all sides of the issue to the viewer - than Fox does.

Actually, I disagree with that pretty strongly - I watch both, every day, and I find each just about as biased as the other - I don't think either is as biased as their detractors say, but they each do present a different side of things. E.g., Fox regularly, as in almost every morning, will have a spokesman for the Democrats and one for the Republicans debate an issue of the day, each given their head to say whatever they like.

I absolutely don't believe Rush gets talking points - the guy is far too independant and egotistic to take his direction from others, and doesn't need it. He also disagrees too strongly with, e.g., Bush direction on a number of issues for that to hold water. And it's really funning hearing a liberal talk about canned talking points being handed out - the dems are hilarious in how they will repeat, almost word for word, talking points on the Sunday shows.

[Midnight Son]

I cannot stand idly by while others state that Faux News is anything less than an official arm of the Republican party! They even have an token liberal (Colmes) whose job it is to meekly object now and then between getting Hannity his latte. Fair and balanced my ass!

[quatoria]

I cannot stand idly by while others state that Faux News is anything less than an official arm of the Republican party! They even have an token liberal (Colmes) whose job it is to meekly object now and then between getting Hannity his latte. Fair and balanced my ass!

Since Colmes describes himself as a moderate, it doesn't exactly seem right to call him a liberal.

[Jason McCullough]

Jeff, notice you're talking about Democratic officials (who obviously do use talking points), not the media themselves. If you don't think Rush marches in lockstep, ok, but I don't see it.

[steve]

I absolutely don't believe Rush gets talking points - the guy is far too independant and egotistic to take his direction from others, and doesn't need it.
The day after Wesley Clark announced his candidacy, Rush used the talking points handed down by the Republicans to attack him on various fronts. And where do you think the "Kerry looks French" ideas came from?

Politicians from each party have talking points, no one denies that. It makes Sunday morning political shows a lot more boring than they should be, because everyone has to get in the talking point even if it isn't relevant to the discussion.

"Sure, Iraq's a mess," the Democrat says, "but that tax cut only benefits the wealthy."

But to somehow deny that the Republicans utilize the media to great effect to spread their talking points is really missing the obvious. It's brilliant how they can turn a few hot-button topics in major issues through hammering it down the throats of listeners/viewers via people like Limbaugh. The Democrats aren't nearly as organized because they're never as unified, and no liberal that I'm aware of has the following of a Libaugh or O'Reilly or Hannity. There's no equal.

I don't see a bias on CNN at all, particularly the website since it uses AP and Reuters almost exclusively. I think it's reporting is as balanced as possible, but I guess it all depends on your perspective.

[quatoria]

It should be obvious, but clearly isn't: the farther right you are, the more 'leftist' the center appears to you, and balance becomes something impossible to discern. The reverse, obviously, also applies.

[bmulligan]

The center is the space occupied by the people who really have no ideals. They believe compromise is the answer to all situations, and principles can be molded to fit 'today's problems' which are far different from those of 200 years ago.

Don't even try to defend the moderates quatoria. They're just liberals without backbones.

[XPav]

Don't even try to defend the moderates quatoria. They're just liberals without backbones.

How do you know they aren't conservatives without backbones?

[Midnight Son]

I'm a moderate with a big stiff backbone. Hugs trees and executes killers. So bite me, militia folks.

[Lizard_King]

Jeff, notice you're talking about Democratic officials (who obviously do use talking points), not the media themselves. If you don't think Rush marches in lockstep, ok, but I don't see it.

The point isn't that using your loose, overbroad definition for "marching in lockstep" (extra points for the fascist overtones!), Rush won't match it. It is simply that if that is the case for him, it is then surely the case for the media in general. Everyone is therefore marching in lockstep. For every Hannity and Colmes (where the liberal is slightly overmatched much of the time, just enough to keep the audience happy) there is a Crossfire with the opposite scenario. Fox is less ideologically motivated than it is populist and (often) stupid. CNN is no less guilty, as any organization founded by a Ted Turner would be. These media magnates may have a personal agenda, but their first obligation is populism to net the cash.
You simply refuse to see the direct analogy between your criticisms of Fox and Rush and the right's criticism of the NYT and CNN etc: it is the one sidedness of the criticism that makes it invalid, not to mention the generally unrealistic belief that anyone can provide "objective" journalism. For my money it is simply wiser for people to demand their media outlets have greater transparency and responsibity in revealing their biases, thus allowing readers to distill and filter accordingly.

[Midnight Son]

Hey, CNN has plenty of conservatives on such as Wolf "Man" Blitzer and Lou Dobbs. I hear Dobbs ask excruciatingly one-sided questions every night. At least on Crossfire, Novak gets called on his BS by Begala and the Rajin' Cajun.

[quatoria]

I'm a moderate with a big stiff backbone. Hugs trees and executes killers. So bite me, militia folks.

I hope I'm not being insulting here, Son, but you don't fit into any category of 'moderate' that I can conceptualize.

[quatoria]

For every Hannity and Colmes (where the liberal is slightly overmatched much of the time, just enough to keep the audience happy) there is a Crossfire with the opposite scenario. Fox is less ideologically motivated than it is populist and (often) stupid. CNN is no less guilty, as any organization founded by a Ted Turner would be. These media magnates may have a personal agenda, but their first obligation is populism to net the cash.

First point: Hannity and Colmes isn't Hannity vs. Slightly Overmatched Liberal, it's Hannity vs. Moderate who speaks, on average, half as much or less. Colmes is a self-identified moderate, and has said on repeated occasions in the press that it would be inaccurate to term him a liberal.

As far as Fox goes, I agree with you on the basis for its founding. Rupert Murdoch has no personal idealogy beyond the worship of money. He would (and has) create stations to serve as propoganda vehicles for China, if it would make him a few extra bucks. That said, Fox most certainly does have a concrete idealogy. Roger Ailes was appointed to create and head the Fox News Channel with a specific agenda given to him - to create a highly polarized, right-wing channel.

Is that because Rupert Murdoch is a right winger? No, it's because Rupert Murdoch forsaw a unique opprotunity. He saw the right wing becoming ascendant in American politics, and knew that by creating a right wing news channel, he could both tap into a growing populist sentiment, thus ensuring ratings and cash, and create a unique lobbying machine, giving him an unprecedented ability to swing debates on policy and issues in whatever direction he chooses. The whole thing has really been a quite remarkable endeavor.

[Midnight Son]

I'm a moderate with a big stiff backbone. Hugs trees and executes killers. So bite me, militia folks.


I hope I'm not being insulting here, Son, but you don't fit into any category of 'moderate' that I can conceptualize.

Explain it to me.

[Lizard_King]

First point: Hannity and Colmes isn't Hannity vs. Slightly Overmatched Liberal, it's Hannity vs. Moderate who speaks, on average, half as much or less. Colmes is a self-identified moderate, and has said on repeated occasions in the press that it would be inaccurate to term him a liberal.

Anybody can self-identify as a moderate. Look at Midnight for chrissakes. I actually thought he was being funny for once when he first started that I moderate-you crazy shit.

Do you watch the comparable shows on, say, CNN? Tucker Carlson on Crossfire was deliberately chosen to present the most repugnant, pompous, and repellent conservative view without getting an actual Religious Right nut on board. It's a different form of bias, but a similar one.

In any case, I don't think the problem is with explicitly editorial style forums. The problem as I've defined it above is with the news filtering/creation style of reporting, an ever present tendency that has clearly gotten worse even in the small space of my lifetime. There are no innocents in that, just more and less egregious offenders.

[quatoria]

I haven't watched H&C, no. I've read some transcripts, and read snippets of the show, but haven't watched it myself. I probably should - what time is it on, do you know?

[Lizard_King]

I haven't watched H&C, no. I've read some transcripts, and read snippets of the show, but haven't watched it myself. I probably should - what time is it on, do you know?
You mean Crossfire, right? Or maybe both? I am a little confused. I think they're both on around 8ish ET...right now I have no cable or anything, so it is difficult to say. I bet foxnews.com and cnn.com would hook you up.

[Midnight Son]

Alright, you weenies. Here is my position of a few subjects:

Gun Control: Ownership is legal but must have some controls. No missile launchers for home use.

Abortion: Pro-Choice.

Death Penalty: Off with their head!

Environment: Yes I hug trees, so what?

Immigration: Enforce our borders, dammit! No benefits for illegals.

Some are liberal, some are conservative. I choose to call myself moderate.

[Lizard_King]

Pretty sure no one was looking for an illustration of candidate Midnight's platform....in any case your rhetoric, vitriol, and cyclical posting behaviour is entirely not moderate. Howard Dean supports gun rights, but that doesn't make him a moderate. Any litmus test is fundamentally flawed by its subjective nature, but it's safe to say (I think) if you support universal health care and scream NO BLOOD FOR OIL at the drop of a hat, combined with various smaller issues, you just might be a full fledged leftist.

Again, it is just as much a stylistic question as a substantive one. I am sorry that we all are outing you like this, I realize coming out of the closet on these things can be traumatic for some. Take a deep breath. Look in the mirror. Say it: I'm a leftist, and I love myself anyway!

Consider this a group intervention from a fairly broad consensus on Qt3: Politics- The Forum that Cares.

[Midnight Son]

I look at myself in the mirror and say: "You look mahvelous!! Simply mahvelous!" I will continue to call mahself whatevah ah want, ya compound-living, bible-thumpin', SUV-tailpipe-suckin' right winger, you. :lol:

[Brian Koontz]

Pre-Blakemore, conservatives on Qt3 liked to call themselves moderate. There also wasn't much of a political debate here... no conservatives (or people who were willing to admit it) to pitch in. bmulligan? Post-Blakemore. Lizard_King? Post-Blakemore. Brad Grenz? I didn't know he was conservative until... Post-Blakemore. Daniel Morris is the only conservative I know of who existed as such Pre-Blakemore.

Post-Blakemore, liberals on Qt3 (Midnight Son at least) like to call themselves moderate.

Strange turnaround. Hopefully the Qt3 liberals won't allow conservatives to achieve the inverse of the Pre-Blakemore days.

[Lizard_King]

Lizard_King? Post-Blakemore.
I don't know what sort of aspersions you're casting, but you'll note that my registration date, first post, etc are all concurrent with my political views. You being you, I'm sure you know that. Neither a lurker nor a moderate am I.

[bmulligan]

Don't even try to defend the moderates quatoria. They're just liberals without backbones.

How do you know they aren't conservatives without backbones?

Because they're not really conservative, although they may come from Republican ranks. So, I'll say again: moderates blow with the wind, never stepping on toes, not wanting to ripple the water, trying to please everyone instead of holding to an ideal, moral, principle. The very definition of the moderate is to be in the middle and compromise in order to get things 'done', which is really the same thing as a liberal, who would trade ideals for a 'greater good' any day of the week.

[Bob Cherub]

To which I restate, Midnight Son calling himself a moderate is like Rosie O' Donnell calling herself a skinny lover of cock.

[quatoria]

Strange turnaround. Hopefully the Qt3 liberals won't allow conservatives to achieve the inverse of the Pre-Blakemore days.

I have never in my life suffered from the delusion of believing that I was a moderate. I cannot forsee a future in which I do so, barring sudden head trauma.

[Midnight Son]

To which I restate, Midnight Son calling himself a moderate is like Rosie O' Donnell calling herself a skinny lover of cock.

Tread lightly, friend. I notice you have a thing for fat liberal lesbians. Good luck achieving your goals.

[quatoria]

The very definition of the moderate is to be in the middle and compromise in order to get things 'done', which is really the same thing as a liberal, who would trade ideals for a 'greater good' any day of the week.

That makes no sense, Mulligan. You contradict yourself. If Liberals are focused on the greater good, on helping all members of a society, then it logically follows that their ideals would be similarly focused. So why would they need to "trade their ideals" for the greater good, if the greater good is the focus of their ideals?

You get entirely too caught up in your contempt for non-conservatives. It does you disservice.

[quatoria]

To which I restate, Midnight Son calling himself a moderate is like Rosie O' Donnell calling herself a skinny lover of cock.

Tread lightly, friend.

Yeah, I hear that ro-zilla is a fierce one. If she knew you were even jokingly implying that she likes cock, she might bite yours off. Oh, wait, is that not what you meant, Sonny?

[Midnight Son]

You know, Q, I'm mostly on your side.

[quatoria]

You know, Q, I'm mostly on your side.

I'm my own side.

[Midnight Son]

You know, Q, I'm mostly on your side.

I'm my own side.

Oh excuuuuuuuuuuse me.

[JeffL]

I've never found a conservative who didn't feel that CNN had an obvious liberal bias and Fox news presented a more balanced view (the news portion, not the editorial shows like O'Reilly and Hannity, etc.) I've never found a liberal who didn't feel that CNN was obviously fair and that Fox was conservatively biased (the news part.)

Somehow I think that tells you a little about both channels. When a channel shows you what you feel is reasonable and balanced, it no doubt shares your bias. It's why I watch both.

What I'm really looking for is a channel that pisses off both conservatives AND liberals - that would be a channel that is showing both sides in a fair and balanced manner.

[Midnight Son]

Where do we pigeonhole MSNBC?

[Jason McCullough]

Pretty sure no one was looking for an illustration of candidate Midnight's platform....in any case your rhetoric, vitriol, and cyclical posting behaviour is entirely not moderate. Howard Dean supports gun rights, but that doesn't make him a moderate. Any litmus test is fundamentally flawed by its subjective nature, but it's safe to say (I think) if you support universal health care and scream NO BLOOD FOR OIL at the drop of a hat, combined with various smaller issues, you just might be a full fledged leftist.

Again, it is just as much a stylistic question as a substantive one. I am sorry that we all are outing you like this, I realize coming out of the closet on these things can be traumatic for some. Take a deep breath. Look in the mirror. Say it: I'm a leftist, and I love myself anyway!

Consider this a group intervention from a fairly broad consensus on Qt3: Politics- The Forum that Cares.

Summary: you disagree with me, so you're a communist. :D

And CNN does piss off liberals a lot, just not all the time.

I wish I could find this academic paper claiming there's no consistent media bias from year to year and going into detail about observational expectations skewing the results. They cite a case of both Palestinians and Isrealis being upset with the same coverage.

[quatoria]

There was also an empirical analysis of coverage given to Gore and Bush, pro and con, showing that consistently, across all the major networks, Bush recieved something like 20-30% more favorable stories than Gore did. Gore got a lot of bogus coverage, misrepresenting him or claiming he lied when he didn't, on every network, CNN and MSNBC included. Surely, if those were "liberally biased" networks, they'd want to pull out all the stops to elect the "liberal" candidate, right?

[steve]

Somehow I think that tells you a little about both channels. When a channel shows you what you feel is reasonable and balanced, it no doubt shares your bias. It's why I watch both.
Not necessarily. If you believe Fox is reasonable and balanced, and they show fewer "negative" reports than CNN about conservative issues, CNN is inherently "more biased" because it's presenting a different, if more accurate and balanced, view. And the same is true from the other side.

So what's the most "fair and balanced(tm)" news organization? AP? Reuters? BBC? ABC? NBC? MSNBC? If it's any of those, you could easily match up the content with CNN or Fox and see which channel more closely adheres to the "balanced" stories. I'm guessing CNN would be closer than Fox to that "center," but I could be wrong.

From my admittedly biased perspective, I see Fox using George W. Bush's preferred term for suicide bombers, not the one used everywhere else in the world, and reports about how great the war is going. Maybe Bush's term is more accurate and maybe Fox is right and all the other channels are unfairly skewing their reporting. In the case of the latter, conversatives claim it's bias while it's just as easy to say it's news organizations tendencies to lead with blood and guts.

But if you go to the Fox News homepage right now, for example, you find Dennis Miller saying how great it is that Gray Davis is gone, and some awful "War On Terror" flash site. It's not a very "fair and balanced(tm)" homepage.

Bill O'Reilly also with what must be an ironic topic, "Smear Tactics: America's fundamental freedoms are under attack by those willing to smear public figures." At least that's a topic near and dear to his heart. As he says, "There's no question the Times used its vast resources to try and keep Gray Davis in office." Except that misses the fact that the same Times also broke the Clinton Troopergate story, which sort of balances out its perceived "liberal bias." Maybe it's a groping bias.

Fox reporting may be perfectly balanced, but Fox News as a whole isn't particularly interested in opposing viewpoints on a number of its shows, or in running shows hosted by liberals. (Which is true of most networks, because there hasn't been a breakout liberal star a la O'Reilly, Limbaugh, or Hannity.) Not that they need this kind of balance, but it makes the channel of less value if you're looking for truly "far and balanced(tm)" reporting.

[theblackw0lf]

There was also an empirical analysis of coverage given to Gore and Bush, pro and con, showing that consistently, across all the major networks, Bush recieved something like 20-30% more favorable stories than Gore did. Gore got a lot of bogus coverage, misrepresenting him or claiming he lied when he didn't, on every network, CNN and MSNBC included. Surely, if those were "liberally biased" networks, they'd want to pull out all the stops to elect the "liberal" candidate, right?

Watch "Journeys with George", and you'll see why the press gave Bush an easier time. Basically he charmed them to the point they ended up liking him. You'll even hear reporters complaining that they're having a hard time being critical of Bush because he's coming across as too charming. For whatever cognitive intelligence Bush lacks, he's said have great emotional intellgence, and is very skilled at getting people to like him. Gore was never as charming, and the press found him dull and uninteresting, and that affected their reporting of him.

So while I do believe that there is a liberal bias in the media (Bustamante and MECHA anyone?) They can also be swayed by the individual people they're reporting on.

[quatoria]

Which would seem to imply that these are not people being driven, first and foremost, by a liberal political bias, no?

[XPav]

So while I do believe that there is a liberal bias in the media (Bustamante and MECHA anyone?) They can also be swayed by the individual people they're reporting on.


Oooo, back in the day, Bustamante was a member of Mecha, and some crazies that also call themselves Mecha, but are shunned by the main group, decided to call for crazy things.

Its about as much a stretch as calling Arnold a Nazi because he might have said something back in the day.

I went to a college with a Mecha chapter. The only people that said they wanted to secede from the US were the right wing crazies writing newspaper articles about them.

[JeffL]

Somehow I think that tells you a little about both channels. When a channel shows you what you feel is reasonable and balanced, it no doubt shares your bias. It's why I watch both.
Not necessarily. If you believe Fox is reasonable and balanced, and they show fewer "negative" reports than CNN about conservative issues, CNN is inherently "more biased" because it's presenting a different, if more accurate and balanced, view. And the same is true from the other side.

(snip a "fair and balanced" response)



I have no doubt that Fox News (not including the editorial programming) has a lean to the conservative side. For instance, this past week they interviewed a producer from Frontline who put together a pretty damning show on the American military in Iraq, with clips that showed the absolutely worst side of what's going on over there. The interviewer for Fox probed him on what he saw that was good in Iraq, and when the producer refused to answer, saying that that was irrelevant, he nailed him pretty hard. Same guy interviewed on CNN, and there was never a question at all on whether there was anything positive going on in Iraq, just questions like "Why do you think we've gone so wrong in Iraq?" and "Do you think the administration is just completely lost in a situation like this?", i.e., feeding him questions to help him make his point.

So was Fox News being a puppet for the conservatives by asking the guy whether he saw anything good going on in Iraq, whether he ever got out of Bagdhad, etc.? Was CNN being a schill for the liberals by not challenging the producer but only feeding him softball questions to help him make his assertions? Dunno. It's why I watch both. I see and hear questions and a side of things on each channel that I would miss if I only watched one.

[XPav]

How Limbaugh would have reacted to Clinton being addicted to painkillers.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/Bill+McClellan/25FF9A36D42606EA86256DBE001517F2?OpenDocument&Headline=If+Bill+Clinton+were++an+addict,+here\'s+ how+Rush+might+spin+it