• 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's latest controversy

D

Don62

Guest
What does everyone think of this?

I just saw one of the Vote Vets ads against Rush Limbaugh. They call out his name.

Leaders of the U.S. Senate on the floor of the Senate denoucing what Rush calls "a private citiizen."

How many problems or disputes is this guy going to get into?
 
Best ad I've seen in a long time.

Already on YouTube:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kKM_NsTswco

Heard the sound bite of Rush saying he was being attacked as "a private citizen." Rush is as far from being a private citizen as I am from being straight.
 
He is a private citizen. Care to show the proof otherwise?

This is one of the most stupid "controversies" I've ever seen. Two words, taken completely out of context, and they weren't even his own. What a load of bull.

Doesn't Congress have anything better to do? You know, like... I dunno, maybe their jobs?!
 
Josh C. said:
He is a private citizen. Care to show the proof otherwise?
Click to expand...

Ever take a class in communications law, Josh? Rush is a public figure, not a private citizen.

Of course, you are welcome to get a second opinion from my law-enforcement co-workers.

By the way, Josh...Do you have the same sentiments about the condemnation of MoveOn.org?
 
Congress has many more important things to do....but given its recent propensity to do the inane (like the every-other-year flag burning amendment) it only follows some members would rail against Rush.

1. Rush is a public figure
2. If he were an adult instead of a spoiled child he would admit to making a mistake and life would go on. Talking for 3 hours a day sometimes people make mistakes. But his bluster gets in the way of his good sense.
3. They ought to yank him off of Armed Forces Radio.
 
How does Rush get so lucky? How many talk hosts wouldn't LOVE to be censured by U.S. Senators? They are the ones who should be embarrassed taking up the Senate's time getting into personal scraps with a mere radio talk show host.

The same people who hated him before still hate him and the same people who liked him before still like him.

It's hard to argue, as so many people do, that his show is passe', when he so easily grabs headlines.
 
Just because he is a public figure doesn't mean he's not a private citizen. The two are not mutually exclusive.

And, yes, I'd be glad to chime in on the condemnation of MoveOn.org. That was sheer stupidity on Congress' part, too.
 
Josh C. said:
Just because he is a public figure doesn't mean he's not a private citizen. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Going on your logic, every single member of Congress is also a private citizen.

Nice try, Josh.
 
I've heard the analysis of the issue and find criticism of Rush at least on this issue to be without merit.

Though I like to listen to left-wing radio when I can, I find Stephanie Miller's and Rhandi Rhodes' obnoxious rants on this issue to be tiring.

They seem to read a lot into nothing and appear to think the world will end unless the Big Guy apologizes. Dittos for blowhard and airbag Keith Olbermann.
 
Sean Gilbow said:
Josh C. said:
Just because he is a public figure doesn't mean he's not a private citizen. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Going on your logic, every single member of Congress is also a private citizen.

Nice try, Josh.
Click to expand...
To quote Spock, "your logic is flawed."

Every single member of Congress receives a government paycheck. Rush Limbaugh does not, hence he is a private citizen. Unless you can prove otherwise (which you can't unless, by some amazing feat, you find his name on a list of government salaries), you're wrong in your assumption that he's anything other than.

Nice try, Sean.
 
Josh C. said:
Every single member of Congress receives a government paycheck. Rush Limbaugh does not, hence he is a private citizen.
Click to expand...

You can be both a private citizen and a public figure. Private in the sense that Rush works in the private sector. But there is a legal principle that has to do with libel and slander suits called being "a public figure".

A person can become an "public figure" as the result of publicity so you can work in the private sector and still be a public figure in the legal sense.

The only reason the distinction is important is if someone who is a "public figure" sues for libel or slander, he or she has to meet a higher standard and show "malice". All of this is academic because there will be no libel or slander suit.

Having said all that, I agree that it's wacky for U.S. Senators to waste time on a radio talk host. They are simply fodder for his publicity machine.
 
Josh C. said:
Every single member of Congress receives a government paycheck. Rush Limbaugh does not, hence he is a private citizen. Unless you can prove otherwise (which you can't unless, by some amazing feat, you find his name on a list of government salaries), you're wrong in your assumption that he's anything other than.
Click to expand...

This is a logic tapdance. O'Reilly dealt with it on his own show the other night in his pathetic attempt to get two of the Fox blondes to give him the greenlight to sue Media Matters, et al., for "slander and libel" for taking him "out of context." The argument Rush is using isn't too far off from O'Reilly's. The claim is that since Rush is not an elected official, he shouldn't be fair game (that was his whole argument about General "Betray Us" and Moveon.org -- moveon isn't attacking an elected official which makes it not okay, but it was just fine to tarnish John Kerry in 2004 because he was an elected official).

But as any lawyer will tell you, if you a public figure of note, you can be lampooned, satired, or even attacked in a political ad and you have no right to sue them for that. Rush Limbaugh is hardly a private guy that nobody knows. He's a very public figure and can be the subject of a response ad.

By the way, I notice that his claims to desire votevets to buy time on his show for ad responses is amusingly countered by WJNO's refusal to run any ads critical of Limbaugh it order to protect his listeners from contrary viewpoints. WJNO managed to completely destroy Rush's own credibility on this issue by demonstrating Rush needs protection from opposing viewpoints.

Of course, this entire argument is a side show distraction from the greater issues at hand.

Don62 said:
Though I like to listen to left-wing radio when I can, I find Stephanie Miller's and Rhandi Rhodes' obnoxious rants on this issue to be tiring.

They seem to read a lot into nothing and appear to think the world will end unless the Big Guy apologizes. Dittos for blowhard and airbag Keith Olbermann.
Click to expand...

Hmm... you mean like the right's obsession the week earlier over a newspaper ad that came up at nearly every congressional hearing and led to an incredibly silly waste of time resolution that condemned hate speech? Last week we had Republicans Without War Strategies running all over Washington making this into some giant issue, and then when Rush put his foot in it, suddenly the honest sanctimony was exposed as foolish politicking when we watched GOP'ers refuse to unify around condemning critical comments about our armed forces made by one of their allies. Rush effectively neutralized the entire moveon issue (with the ten voters that actually cared about it) this week. For every five minutes spent by Rhodes or Miller on this, there was at least 50 spent the week before whining about moveon.
 
Phillip, I think we're saying essentially the same thing, though I disagree that my argument is a "logic tapdance". He is a public figure, and he is also a private citizen. We're in agreement on that, right? As I said before, the two are not mutually exclusive. To one who looks at the terms without looking at the actual definitions of the terms, it might seem as if they are, but when you actually examine what they mean, they're not. Sean Gilbow was arguing that they are. He's wrong.
 
Josh C. said:
Phillip, I think we're saying essentially the same thing, though I disagree that my argument is a "logic tapdance". He is a public figure, and he is also a private citizen. We're in agreement on that, right? As I said before, the two are not mutually exclusive. To one who looks at the terms without looking at the actual definitions of the terms, it might seem as if they are, but when you actually examine what they mean, they're not. Sean Gilbow was arguing that they are. He's wrong.
Click to expand...

From The Electric Law Library:

PUBLIC FIGURE - A term usually used in the context of libel and defamation actions where the standards of proof are higher if the party claiming defamation is a public figure and therefore has to prove defamatory statements were made with actual malice. Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton (1989) 491 U.S. 657, 666-668.

The "public figure" issue is not cut and dried. To begin with, a fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm

The second paragraph applies to Rush's entire career.

And your argument is flawed, Josh, in that I also get a government paycheck, as well as every employee of the Ohio Department of Public Safety, where I have worked the last 13 years.

[EDIT]

You have yet to prove me wrong on the private citizen argument. Rush is on 500+ radio stations with 13.5 million listeners, according to Talkers magazine's latest audience numbers. Those figures alone are enough to show he cannot say he is a private citizen.

[EDIT]


[EDIT-inflammatory]
 
Whoop dee doo. Propaganda from votevets.org. This still does not prove that Rush Limbaugh cannot be both a public figure and a private citizen. You're attempting to distract attention from the original point of contention to avoid admitting that you're wrong. That doesn't work with me. I have ADD too, Sean, but please... try to stay on topic.

If you really want to debate this with me, fine. I heard Rush's comments the day they were made, and they were absolutely not about veterans who disagree with the war. They were made in reference to those who have lied about their service for publicity to draw attention to the anti-war crowd. If they had been made about the veterans who disagree with the war, I'd be just as upset about them as anyone else. But they were not. You're wrong on this issue.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom