• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Rush pushes it once again

D

doc9464

Guest
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508050006

Rush successfully uses his "abilities" to get people to believe an "parody" ad about George Soros was actually created by Soros and "the hollywood friends" of Nancy Pelosi - fails to identify it as parody with callers.

Rush is certainly "entertaining"....
 
> http://mediamatters.org/items/200508050006
>
> Rush successfully uses his "abilities" to get people to
> believe an "parody" ad about George Soros was actually
> created by Soros and "the hollywood friends" of Nancy Pelosi
> - fails to identify it as parody with callers.
>
> Rush is certainly "entertaining"....
>

Rush noted the Rove "ad" was a fake, made by WABC and Limbaugh production wizard Johnny Donovan, over three weeks ago--ON HIS SHOW. (I was listening while studying for the bar.) I don't know what Media Matters is up in arms about. Seems they're a bit late to the table on this one; if they listened regularly, instead of selectively, they would have heard the first mea culpa in the week of July 18-22).

Furthermore, Brock and Media Matters want these things to be noted as fakes upfront. Well, the whole point of parody, as Rush noted three weeks ago, is to make it seem either blatantly outrageous or believeable by relying on general pre-conceived notions or stereotypes--no matter how correct or absurd (see the famous Campari ad parody of Jerry Falwell in Hustler, detailing his "first time" (it was loaded with indecent portrayals of sex with goats and his mother). The parody got Larry Flynt sued, and the US Supreme Court established a very important test for defamation by parody: the actual malice public figure rule. See Falwell v. Hustler). By the way, Falwell lost because he couldn't show any actual malice (outrageous conduct) in the parody's publication, nor could he prove any measurable damage to his reputation. It was considered blatant parody on its face.
 
"Limbaugh aired a "commercial" parodying Democratic opposition to Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. without noting that the ad was fake."

Now THAT is funny. I have heard a gazillion parody ads on radio over the years and I don't think I've EVER heard one with a disclaimer *explaining* that it's a parody.

Next thing you know, they will be asking Jay Leno to conclude his monologues by telling everyone that everything that preceded were jokes and not true!

> http://mediamatters.org/items/200508050006
>
> Rush successfully uses his "abilities" to get people to
> believe an "parody" ad about George Soros was actually
> created by Soros and "the hollywood friends" of Nancy Pelosi
> - fails to identify it as parody with callers.
>
> Rush is certainly "entertaining"....
> <P ID="signature">______________
<a href="http://saltydog.5gigs.com">
The Salty Dog</a>
</P>
 
> Furthermore, Brock and Media Matters want these things to be
> noted as fakes upfront.

I don't think they sad


Well, the whole point of parody, as
> Rush noted three weeks ago, is to make it seem either
> blatantly outrageous or believeable by relying on general
> pre-conceived notions or stereotypes--no matter how correct
> or absurd (see the famous Campari ad parody of Jerry Falwell
> in Hustler, detailing his "first time" (it was loaded with
> indecent portrayals of sex with goats and his mother). The
> parody got Larry Flynt sued, and the US Supreme Court
> established a very important test for defamation by parody:
> the actual malice public figure rule. See Falwell v.
> Hustler). By the way, Falwell lost because he couldn't show
> any actual malice (outrageous conduct) in the parody's
> publication, nor could he prove any measurable damage to his
> reputation. It was considered blatant parody on its face.

Those are valid points Johnny and many hosts do parody skits or advertisements but don't you have to think if he was getting that many emails and responses as he was quoted in the article....something wasn't right. Or is his audience that uninformed or stupid? I think thats a legitimate question to ask.

Unlike the left, where plenty of archives exist of various shows, Rush seems to possess the only resource that I know of archived show content ...which im not about to pay for. So I don't have the ability to go back and check how he set it up. In this case, his audinence seems parody-challenged.

My problem is that according to the information, Rush didn't say it was a parody when asked directly....by a caller. That wouldn't be right to me even if I thought to myself.."Gee, this moron didn't get my joke...". For me personally, I laugh at the gullibility of his listeners. If one of his dittoheads had to ask that question, and he didn't answer it correctly which he did not do in this case, then it becomes a form of distortion.

Otherwise, let him continue to mislead the millions who believe his every word...the echo machine works....LOL.
 
> > Furthermore, Brock and Media Matters want these things to
> be
> > noted as fakes upfront.
>
> I don't think they sad

No, but that's what I take their point to be. If they don't care one way or the other, then the whole Media Matters post had no point outside of "hey, look how stupid some Republicans are" (which seems to be a recurring thing at Media Matters, but I digress...)

>
> Well, the whole point of parody, as
> > Rush noted three weeks ago, is to make it seem either
> > blatantly outrageous or believeable by relying on general
> > pre-conceived notions or stereotypes--no matter how
> correct
> > or absurd (see the famous Campari ad parody of Jerry
> Falwell
> > in Hustler, detailing his "first time" (it was loaded with
>
> > indecent portrayals of sex with goats and his mother).
> The
> > parody got Larry Flynt sued, and the US Supreme Court
> > established a very important test for defamation by
> parody:
> > the actual malice public figure rule. See Falwell v.
> > Hustler). By the way, Falwell lost because he couldn't
> show
> > any actual malice (outrageous conduct) in the parody's
> > publication, nor could he prove any measurable damage to
> his
> > reputation. It was considered blatant parody on its face.
>
>
> Those are valid points Johnny and many hosts do parody skits
> or advertisements but don't you have to think if he was
> getting that many emails and responses as he was quoted in
> the article....something wasn't right. Or is his audience
> that uninformed or stupid? I think thats a legitimate
> question to ask.

True, it is legitimate to ask that. But to the casual listener, one who may not have been paying full attention, the ads could have gone by in a flash without the "parody" jumping out at them.

> Unlike the left, where plenty of archives exist of various
> shows, Rush seems to possess the only resource that I know
> of archived show content ...which im not about to pay for.
> So I don't have the ability to go back and check how he set
> it up. In this case, his audinence seems parody-challenged.

Rush has a right to protect his intellectual property--which his show archives most certainly are. The left hosts have the same right, and I would suggest maybe they start doing so--it will save Randi Rhodes, et al., the problems assocaited to someone mis-interpreting an archived piece on George W. Bush and spreading it on a message board (think back to the "killing" piece a few months back).

> My problem is that according to the information, Rush didn't
> say it was a parody when asked directly....by a caller. That
> wouldn't be right to me even if I thought to myself.."Gee,
> this moron didn't get my joke...". For me personally, I
> laugh at the gullibility of his listeners. If one of his
> dittoheads had to ask that question, and he didn't answer it
> correctly which he did not do in this case, then it becomes
> a form of distortion.

When asked about the Rove ad in July, he did answer it directly and said it was a parody. I don't know about the Roberts ad, but will take the reports as true (for purposes here). Rush didn't answer the question at all--which is neither distortion or otherwise. We can argue back and forth about whether he should have answered or not (I don't think it matters one way or the other); maybe (speculation here) he figured since he spilled about the earlier ad that the hard-core listeners would have known the difference, and those that didn't are casual listeners. Should they be fooled? It's a moral debate, and I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I've kept listeners in the dark about a bit before, so I'm not one to complain.

> Otherwise, let him continue to mislead the millions who
> believe his every word...the echo machine works....LOL.

I guess. I'll keep my comments here to myself.
 
The obsession of Rush haters

> My problem is that according to the information, Rush didn't say it was a
> parody when asked directly....by a caller. That wouldn't be right to me even
> if I thought to myself.."Gee, this moron didn't get my joke...".

Rush airs parody ads all day long. They are so obviously jokes, I'm sure that Rush mentioned the emails to make fun of how stupid they are. Or because he suspects lefties did it to make it seem like he did something wrong.

>For me personally, I laugh at the gullibility of his listeners.

What is the evidence of that? Because he got some emails from ignorant listeners? He's got 14 million listeners, so if he got *1,000* emails on the subject(which I doubt), that would be .007% of his listeners. And don't forget that a lot of liberals listen to his show.

> If one of his dittoheads had to ask that question, and he didn't answer it
> correctly which he did not do in this case, then it becomes
> a form of distortion.

:>) I'm sure the FCC will be looking into this.


> Otherwise, let him continue to mislead the millions who
> believe his every word...the echo machine works.

You gotta be wound pretty tight to be to sit around and ponder the unfairness of airing parody ads that didn't disclose that they are in fact, parodies.<P ID="signature">______________
<a href="http://saltydog.5gigs.com">
The Salty Dog</a>
</P>
 
> > > Furthermore, Brock and Media Matters want these things
> to
> > be
> > > noted as fakes upfront.
> >
> > I don't think they sad
>
> No, but that's what I take their point to be. If they don't
> care one way or the other, then the whole Media Matters post
> had no point outside of "hey, look how stupid some
> Republicans are" (which seems to be a recurring thing at
> Media Matters, but I digress...)
>
> >
> > Well, the whole point of parody, as
> > > Rush noted three weeks ago, is to make it seem either
> > > blatantly outrageous or believeable by relying on
> general
> > > pre-conceived notions or stereotypes--no matter how
> > correct
> > > or absurd (see the famous Campari ad parody of Jerry
> > Falwell
> > > in Hustler, detailing his "first time" (it was loaded
> with
> >
> > > indecent portrayals of sex with goats and his mother).
> > The
> > > parody got Larry Flynt sued, and the US Supreme Court
> > > established a very important test for defamation by
> > parody:
> > > the actual malice public figure rule. See Falwell v.
> > > Hustler). By the way, Falwell lost because he couldn't
> > show
> > > any actual malice (outrageous conduct) in the parody's
> > > publication, nor could he prove any measurable damage to
>
> > his
> > > reputation. It was considered blatant parody on its
> face.
> >
> >
> > Those are valid points Johnny and many hosts do parody
> skits
> > or advertisements but don't you have to think if he was
> > getting that many emails and responses as he was quoted in
>
> > the article....something wasn't right. Or is his audience
> > that uninformed or stupid? I think thats a legitimate
> > question to ask.
>
> True, it is legitimate to ask that. But to the casual
> listener, one who may not have been paying full attention,
> the ads could have gone by in a flash without the "parody"
> jumping out at them.
>
> > Unlike the left, where plenty of archives exist of various
>
> > shows, Rush seems to possess the only resource that I know
>
> > of archived show content ...which im not about to pay for.
>
> > So I don't have the ability to go back and check how he
> set
> > it up. In this case, his audinence seems
> parody-challenged.
>
> Rush has a right to protect his intellectual property--which
> his show archives most certainly are. The left hosts have
> the same right, and I would suggest maybe they start doing
> so--it will save Randi Rhodes, et al., the problems
> assocaited to someone mis-interpreting an archived piece on
> George W. Bush and spreading it on a message board (think
> back to the "killing" piece a few months back).
>
> > My problem is that according to the information, Rush
> didn't
> > say it was a parody when asked directly....by a caller.
> That
> > wouldn't be right to me even if I thought to myself.."Gee,
>
> > this moron didn't get my joke...". For me personally, I
> > laugh at the gullibility of his listeners. If one of his
> > dittoheads had to ask that question, and he didn't answer
> it
> > correctly which he did not do in this case, then it
> becomes
> > a form of distortion.
>
> When asked about the Rove ad in July, he did answer it
> directly and said it was a parody. I don't know about the
> Roberts ad, but will take the reports as true (for purposes
> here). Rush didn't answer the question at all--which is
> neither distortion or otherwise. We can argue back and
> forth about whether he should have answered or not (I don't
> think it matters one way or the other); maybe (speculation
> here) he figured since he spilled about the earlier ad that
> the hard-core listeners would have known the difference, and
> those that didn't are casual listeners. Should they be
> fooled? It's a moral debate, and I don't have an opinion
> one way or the other. I've kept listeners in the dark about
> a bit before, so I'm not one to complain.
>
> > Otherwise, let him continue to mislead the millions who
> > believe his every word...the echo machine works....LOL.
>
> I guess. I'll keep my comments here to myself.

Again, Johnny, you make some valid points. I guess we will have to disagree on this one....which is fine...but you are right we could probably match points over and over...but i think the debate solves it self until someting of similar substance comes up for discussion.

In response to the Salty dog...questioning some of Rush's actions doesn't make me obsessed with Rush Limbaugh. far from it..but I certainly point out where he or any other host does something I don't like...or agree with.
>
 
SO, is the following a parody or real: (We know that AAR is having financial difficulties) (thank goddess, clear Channel is subsidizing them in some of their affiliates)

http://larslarson.com/LinksNStuff/LarsSpoofs/Attachment_GetAttachment.aspx?id=1466&fd=0<P ID="signature">______________
We send you a $1 every other day. Please fill out your diaries.
</P>
 
> We know that AAR is having financial difficulties

On what basis do "we" know that?<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom