• 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

"The Assassination of Rush Limbaugh"

Phillip Dampier said:
gr8oldies said:
I was looking through a book a by "Democracy Now as long as our side wins" host Amy Goodman. She complained about an appearance on the Sally Jesse Rafael show where only one person could speak at a time, instead of her people being able to shout down and silence the opposition.

Thank you for your characterization of what she said. I'm sure we can count on you to bring us the actual quote. :)

Here are some actual Goodman 'quotes':The Book Babes interview Amy Goodman of Pacifica's "Democracy Now!" on the 55th anniversary of the country's first public radio network.



Book Babes: Do you consider yourself an activist or a journalist?

Goodman: Both, both.
Is there a contradiction between the two?

Oh, I don't think so. I think what matters as a journalist is that you're fair and accurate, and that when someone is on the air, he or she feels like there's a chance to represent his or her point of view.

then there's this excerpt from an interview on fightingbob.com. try to read between the lines, folks.:


In Exception to the Rulers, the book that my brother David and I wrote, we tell the story of the "Sally Jesse Raphael Show."

She said she was listening in her limousine. I guess her chauffeur had turned on the program and she asked if I’d come down in two days, they would like to do a show on the war. Have three women for and against. I said “great.” ...

...And the producer said “I really want you to duke it out on the stage—I really want this show to work. I want to prove we can get the ratings for this....

...
So we went out on the stage and lights came up and music came on, Sally came out and immediately the show started and she handed the mic to someone in the audience, a woman who said I’m really concerned about Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons, to which the woman next to me, Dr. Yolanda Hewitt-Vaughn, who is an army captain, trained as a doctor, refusing to go to the Gulf, she said she was trained to save lives not take them, responded. She said, “I share your concern, but I also think it’s important to point out that there are chemical and biological weapons right here in the United…” And before she could get out the word, “States,” Sally whirled around and she came barreling down the isle screaming, “This is my show. You be quiet, you shut up or you get out!” And she’s coming down at such a velocity, and you know I was thinking about how that producer said we should duke it out, you know the whole Jerry Springer thing, Sally’s coming down to the stage, and here’s Dr. Yolanda Hewitt-Vaughn, very petite woman, long black dress, glasses, hair tied back, very soft-spoken, hands in her lap, and as Sally is coming up on the stage, I said: “Whoa Sally, back off!” And Sally stopped the taping of the show. She had told, they had told us, the audience that they had stopped taping. I brought people from WBAI, and they were chanting “Free Speech, free speech.” You can dress them up but you can’t take them anywhere.

...But somehow they convinced her to carry on with the taping of the show, with one caveat: We would have to raise our hands if we had anything to say, the guests. I’ve never seen anything like that except on Sesame Street. But we agreed. And so we carried on.

http://www.fightingbob.com/article.cfm?articleID=233

Now, I did not see the show in question, but let's try to analyze this fairly.

We have a so called 'journalist' that thinks it's okay to be an 'activist', too, that goes on the show and brings with her a crowd of anti-war protestors.

Now, she never says that people were talking over each other, or that the protestors were getting unruly in the audience, but Sally stops the show, and makes everyone present ( that means the pro-war women, too ) 'raise thier hand' so that each one can be heard.

Then there's this little gem:

So Sally shows a videotape of the protestors in Washington and she says to me, “Who are these people?” I didn’t know their names, but I could see that these are people who are taking to the streets because they are not invited to a corporate network studio to talk in a civilized one-on-one way with an anchor about why they oppose the war. So they take to the streets. They’re not invited in like someone like Henry Kissinger who can explain in a very calm way why he’s in favor of invasion.....

Here my guess; Sally invites both sides to debate the war. Goodman brings with her a bunch of protestors that started 'acting a fool' ( that's a term used in my neighborhood for acting innappropriately ), Sally tries to get a hold on the situation before it meltsdown, it DOES meltdown, Sally stops taping, tells the 'progressive' types there to 'sit down and shut up' and discuss things like adults, and after the show edits the tape to make Goodman and her crew look like tools ( which is pretty bad on her part ).

Then Goodman gets her thong in a bunch, and writes in her book that since her folks didn't get to shout, bully, and badger the pro-war commentators, somehow thier 'free speech' was violated.

Now, anyone have a problem with any of that? I'm just trying to be fair, I already know I'm unbalanced ;)
 
Conservatives just like to whine, cry and throw hissyfits when some people disagree with them. They're good at playing the blame game. If they don't agree, they must be liberally biased!
[/quote]

No doubt there are conservatives who express themselves the way you've just described. However, just look at the posts above from liberals and you'll discover that whining, crying and throwing hissyfits isn't something limited to conservatives.
 
I've skimmed through most of this thread and, correct me if I'm wrong, haven't seen mention of the person who would be more than a match for Limbaugh, Hannity or O'Reilly. The man's name is Howard Stern. Nuclear winter personified. When Howard's not talking strippers and sex, he's brilliant and funny. Moreover, he's dead-nuts-on.

Air America is ponderous. As it's been said, if liberals or libertarians want to compete, they're going to have to understand the ground rules, how the game is played and the nature of the game. Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz "get it" and have a clue. That's why they sound better than the rest of the pretenders. Problem is, I haven't heard ONE lib-talk station that is produced and promotes itself as well as most con-talk stations. Call letters, bumpers, bumper music, promos, LOCAL news, weather, traffic and uh, oh yeah, entertaining, topical content.

A few years back, I heard WLIB, NY and thought it was fetid. Market #1 and what passed for radio wouldn't have made it in East Bumfart.

Anybody who's listened intently (and intensely) to talk radio, and anybody who's worked in it for any significant length of time knows how the dynamic works. It isn't rocket science, it's RADIO science and it's an art.

I'd personally much prefer the NPR template, but that's not how the game has been defined and structured. Perhpas some day that will change, but for today, andbody who's doing lib-talk better understand that before being a liberal, it's more important to be a BROADCASTER and understand how the game is played.

Randy Michaels is now behind Ed Schultz. Say or think what you will about Michaels, he's a star-maker and knows how to get it done. Big Ed, on comparable stations, would be a formidable competitor to Rush. This having been said, I'll stand by my original contention. You wanna nuke Rush? Save your bullets and blades and hire Howard Stern.

[/Mike] (The house painter from Buffalo)
 
The problem I see with political talk radio, and the news media in general, is journalism being confused with entertainment. Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity & company are there to hold listeners & keep them riled up. To accomplish this they need the simple concept of the common enemy...the left, Democrats, liberals, whatever you want to call them. Keep the message simple; Democrats bad, always wrong & Republicans good, always right. Truth or fair reporting has nothing to do with it. These 3 especially have been exposed distorting facts, using selective editing and outright lying to make Democrats look bad, many times. Don't believe it? Don't take my word for it. Just listen, record some "facts" they put out there and do some research for yourself via Google or any search engine to verify. Pay special attention to any sound bites of Democrats because these guys frequently doctor the recordings to twist the meaning. I'm not saying Democrats walk on water, far from it. But no one side of any debate is always wrong or always right. Except on conservative talk radio. So let's call it what it is; entertainment. Bizarre entertainment. Why else would conservative talkers still paint the Democrats as the villains dragging America down in 2006 when the entire US gov't has been under complete Republican control since 2001 while keeping Democrats powerless.

Progressive radio has alot of catching up to do with the count being approximately 450 conservative talkers on the US airwaves now and liberal talkers somewhere less than 50 (Franken is not their savior although I give him points for his humor and passion). The best left-leaning talker I've heard is Ed Schultz. He's not in lockstep with the Democrats as the three mentioned above are with the Republicans. He doesn't screen his calls, which means not every caller is a sycophant, ala Rush. Plus, he's very fair with his callers regardless of their politics. And he's already beaten Hannity in several markets.

Anyone with functioning gray matter has caught on to Limbaugh's schtick long ago and moved on. All through the 90's he preached that conservatives could save the world and now here in 2006 the Democrats have no power whatsoever & Republicans have been in control of every branch of gov't for nearly 6 years and what do we have? Chaos & corruption. But, hey, Rush got his tax cut. I find it ironic that this man constantly assumes the moral high ground; a doctor-shopping Oxy addict who takes a vacation at a Dominican sex resort with someone else's viagra while on parole.

The question was raised in a post concerning debates between lefty & righty talkers.
It will never happen because Limbaugh, O'Reilly & Hannity and their offspring don't function well in a fair debate atmosphere and they would never allow it. If they can't dominate the conversation by shouting someone down or shutting off their mic, then they are helpless. They don't deal in facts and they talk AT the audience & guests not TO them. Take them out of their protective cocoons & they would be exposed for the fools they are. O'Reilly and Hannity have learned from Limbaugh's few disastrous ventures outside his own studio and they rarely ever appear anywhere but there own programs. Remember Rush's embarassing experiences hosting the Pat Sajak show and appearing on Lettermen? The clips are out there. And, of course, he looked like a buffoon on ESPN.

Think for yourself.
 
"Think for yourself."


I totally agree with these three words, you should try it some time Sky. It will be a little more of a challenge than just regurgitating DNC moore-on.org hate based, lie ridden, talking points but I think it is certainly worth a try for you.
 
u should actually take your own advice.

all the bush-camp followers do is trail along in lock-step w/whatever the rove-induced through 4 the day is.

"think for yourself". ;) you are EXTREMELY right about those words. give it a try sometime
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom