"The Assassination of Rush Limbaugh"

[Herb999]

Well if the truth makes you laugh then you must have a very serious look on your face when Air America and Pacifica radio are giving you your marching orders.

 

[radiofriend1]

Well if the truth makes you laugh then you must have a very serious look on your face when Air America and Pacifica radio are giving you your marching orders.

which has **ZERO** to do with his post. nice try anyway

 

[Herb999]

You are correct in that the truth never has anything to do with a liberal.

 

[evnlee]

Phil, if you can honestly say you would not want to hear Franken VS Rush in a neutral debate setting, then you are being as intellectually dishonest as the right wingnuts you rail against.

Rush wouldn't do it, first of all. Secondly, it would be as predictable as everything else. Recite the talking points, go to break. Crossfire's ratings sucked at the end, precisely because the show was so predictable, and was also loaded up with guests who needed exposure for their own political careers.

As for Stewart, if you think he 'killed' Crossfire, you are deluded. The thing that 'killed' crossfire was the sucky hosts they hired to drive that sucker in the ground. As for your misguided point about how Crossfire was 'not compelling or informative', the radio version ran for 12 years, and the TV version for 23 years. Not a bad run for a show your hero told you to hate :

Even Tucker says the Stewart appearance was what tipped a show already lagging in ratings over the edge when CNN management started focusing on it post-Jon Stewart. I don't need a "hero" to tell me to hate or love a show. Recitations of talking points made me flee the show years before.

I give up. You honestly think that Franken would not relish the chance to debate Rush in an impartial forum? I guess that's why he has a 'dittohead' on his show all the time. Geez.

Everyone with a clue knows that you would LOVE to hear that debate. If you are as big a fan of AAR as you claim, it would be the culmination of all the effort going into putting that abberation on the air in the first place, an opportunity to give voice to those that despise Rush' message, and the fair chance to shut him down live, without a clear advantage, on neutral territory.

The original Crossfire was a success BECAUSE of the level of talent of the hosts involved. ( see wikka ) The downfall of Crossfire was due to the LACK of talent involved. Rush VS Franken would be epic, they would not be able to counter each other with straight 'talking points', and if that be the case, then what does that say about Franken and Rush? If all Franken could use to debate Rush is straight DNC gospel, then he's not that smart, talented, and funny after all huh? If Rush could not debate Franken without sounding like Tony Snow, what's that say about Rush?

You have exposed your dishonesty, Phillip. Ouch.

I still maintain that this format was done successfully before, and could be done again( but Rush vs Franken wont happen). Since Stewart has issued your marching orders, I can't see you being objective enough to give this a chance. Somehow, I am not surprised.

Stewart is a funny guy when in his element,very witty. With a stacked deck he does not come off as 'smug and humorless' Oscar reviews). When it's just him and a mixed audience, he has flamed out many times before.

 

[kaufcom]

Even Tucker says the Stewart appearance was what tipped a show already lagging in ratings over the edge when CNN management started focusing on it post-Jon Stewart. I don't need a "hero" to tell me to hate or love a show. Recitations of talking points made me flee the show years before.

Crossfire wasn't cancelled because of low ratings. It was cancelled because CNN changed its format to anchor driven news coverage typified by the "situation room" CNN has had some success with this new format with ratings growing, but still lagging behind Fox News which continues to run opinion based programming skewing to right-wingers.

 

[kaufcom]

Everyone with a clue knows that you would LOVE to hear that debate. If you are as big a fan of AAR as you claim, it would be the culmination of all the effort going into putting that abberation on the air in the first place, an opportunity to give voice to those that despise Rush' message, and the fair chance to shut him down live, without a clear advantage, on neutral territory.

You revealed your true feelings by referring to AAR as an "abberation on the air" That "aberration" is currently carried on radio stations reaching 70% of the U.S. Actually, your proposal to have a talk show featuring Rush and Franken is interesting one. Fact is, it's never going to happen. Franken, would love to debate Rush, but Rush would never do it. Not in million years. About ten years ago Rush debated Al Sharpton on a national TV show. Sharpton made him look like a fool. If El Rushbo can't handle Sharpton he's not going up against Franken. Remember when Franken debated O'Reilly on CSPAN, O'Reilly lost his cool and walked off the podium.

 

[MightyFrenchman]

CNN has had some success with this new format with ratings growing, but still lagging behind Fox News which continues to run opinion based programming skewing to right-wingers.
[/quote]

Even if your statement about Fox were true, which it isn't, network news has been skewed from a left-wing perspective since the days of Walter Cronkite.

 

[radiofriend1]

You are correct in that the truth never has anything to do with a liberal.

oh yeah that's right-we forgot that whole "liberal" label U paint everybody you don't agree with

someday u will begin to realize all your blather's beginning to be just noize

 

[evnlee]

Everyone with a clue knows that you would LOVE to hear that debate. If you are as big a fan of AAR as you claim, it would be the culmination of all the effort going into putting that abberation on the air in the first place, an opportunity to give voice to those that despise Rush' message, and the fair chance to shut him down live, without a clear advantage, on neutral territory.

You revealed your true feelings by referring to AAR as an "abberation on the air" That "aberration" is currently carried on radio stations reaching 70% of the U.S. Actually, your proposal to have a talk show featuring Rush and Franken is interesting one. Fact is, it's never going to happen. Franken, would love to debate Rush, but Rush would never do it. Not in million years. About ten years ago Rush debated Al Sharpton on a national TV show. Sharpton made him look like a fool. If El Rushbo can't handle Sharpton he's not going up against Franken. Remember when Franken debated O'Reilly on CSPAN, O'Reilly lost his cool and walked off the podium.

cherry picked opinions. I have also expressed my disdain for Rush, but you conveniently overlook that. I have always maintained Rush after his drug problem AND AAR are both: bad radio.

If I recall correctly,O Reilly isn't the only one who 'lost his cool', and Franken has never 'lost his', right? Like storming off Medved's show when confronted with the swiftboat guy, or attacking LaRouche supporters at a political rally?


I got knews for you, Baroosk. Al Sharpton, a former politician and preacher, civil rights activist is WAAAAY more difficult to debate then a washed up comedy writer, bitter because he didn't get the SNL 'weekend update' slot, had his tv show cancelled, and his movie bomb.. Read the 'Live from New York' SNL book sometimes for insights into that nutbag...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVDV7dVzso4

there's a lesson in how NOT to frame those types of debate.

enjoy the koolaid.

 

[Radio_Realist]

I give up. You honestly think that Franken would not relish the chance to debate Rush in an impartial forum? I guess that's why he has a 'dittohead' on his show all the time. Geez.

Everyone with a clue knows that you would LOVE to hear that debate. If you are as big a fan of AAR as you claim, it would be the culmination of all the effort going into putting that abberation on the air in the first place, an opportunity to give voice to those that despise Rush' message, and the fair chance to shut him down live, without a clear advantage, on neutral territory.

I'd like to hear such a show, but only once. It would make a great, one-time stunt. It would be a major, one-time radio event. I just don't see it having much sustaining appeal.

 

[dampier]

I give up. You honestly think that Franken would not relish the chance to debate Rush in an impartial forum? I guess that's why he has a 'dittohead' on his show all the time. Geez.

You are not READING the posts. I'm sure Franken would debate Rush, but Rush would never debate him. When has Rush ever ventured into "enemy" territory in a debate where he didn't control the dump button? It was when Wheel of Fortune guy had a silly late night talk show and things fell apart so quickly with that Rush dumped the entire studio audience.

 

[gr8oldies]

That "Pat Sajak" incident shouldn't have ever been allowed to happen. That was no debate, that was a bunch of loonies screaming. I'd have walked out the first minute.

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.

 

[evnlee]

You are not READING the posts. I'm sure Franken would debate Rush, but Rush would never debate him.

whos not READING posts, Phil?:

"I'm telling you, if done correctly, I bet this format would work. You just have to have a neutral 3rd party ( like a board op ) that cut's off the mic once the bullying begins. YOu have to make your points without shouting down your co-host, and keep the mean spirited name calling to a minimum."

"I still maintain that this format was done successfully before, and could be done again( but Rush vs Franken wont happen). "

No comments on the Rhodes Vs Boortz 'youtube debate'? If that's the best you got, then that's pretty sorry. :'(

 

[dampier]

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.

 

[Arbitorn]

Don't know if it's right or wrong, but my experience is you never shine the light on the little guy when you're the king. It's different if you're David going after Goliath. Then you get to cry and point fingers and claim all kinds of stuff. The big guy always looks like a whiner or a bully when he comments on the little guy. The only time you mention him is when the bank takes over his station. If I was Rush, I wouldn't acknowledge AAR either, other than to say (truthfully) that they are just another failed attempt at competition. Remember when Rush was new and he regularly poked at Larry King? After Rush passed him, Larry ceased to exist. Is that old school thinking passe?

 

[kaufcom]

Even if your statement about Fox were true, which it isn't, network news has been skewed from a left-wing perspective since the days of Walter Cronkite.

You're dating yourself Frenchie. Cronkite has been off the air for over a generation. There's a new day in broadcast journalism today led by righties like Joe Scarborough,
Tucker Carlson, Rita Cosby, Glenn Beck, and Lou Dobbs on cable and Rush lover Brian Williams on NBC.

And what do you mean "even if [my] statement about Fox were true.?"

Are you denying that Fox doesn;t skew slightly to the right?

 

[fred flintstone]

And what do you mean "even if [my] statement about Fox were true.?"

Are you denying that Fox doesn;t skew slightly to the right?

Strange as it may seem, some people do deny that. The following was posted on the Delaware board the other day:

I've been listening to Fox radio news since WILM made the switch and frankly don't see a problem with their news coverage. The style and pace of their newscast is obviously geared to the younger listener which at first I wasn't used to, but now I like. It isn't so stodgy. I've heard negative news stories about the Bush Administration on their hourly newscasts. The difference I hear is that Fox airs both positive and negative news about Bush where as CBS seemed to focus more on the negative. So just maybe Fox radio news IS more fair and balanced.

Full Disclosure: The poster works part-time for the station he mentions.
I've replied in the original thread but I'm curious what people here would say in response.
Fox is a conservative news channel - not that's there anything wrong with that.

 

[MightyFrenchman]

Full Disclosure: The poster works part-time for the station he mentions.
I've replied in the original thread but I'm curious what people here would say in response. Fox is a conservative news channel - not that's there anything wrong with that.
[/quote]

Fox appears to be a conservative news channel because they present both sides of news stories and we're so used to only getting news from a left-wing bias for over 40 years on the mainline networks. Anything other than the predictable liberal interpretation of current events by the networks appears to be conservative when it's only a balanced presentation.

 

[fred flintstone]

Radio People Are Conservatives

Fox appears to be a conservative news channel because they present both sides of news stories and we're so used to only getting news from a left-wing bias for over 40 years on the mainline networks. Anything other than the predictable liberal interpretation of current events by the networks appears to be conservative when it's only a balanced presentation.

Bull!
The Great Lie: "Left Wing Media Bias"
Ever notice that most people who work in radio are conservative. They are pro-authority and don't question the government line. They work for lousy pay but identify with management and resist unions. They are conservative and they think the audience is just like them. But maybe you haven't spent a lot of time in radio stations.

 

[FightingIrish]

Full Disclosure: The poster works part-time for the station he mentions.
I've replied in the original thread but I'm curious what people here would say in response. Fox is a conservative news channel - not that's there anything wrong with that.

Fox appears to be a conservative news channel because they present both sides of news stories and we're so used to only getting news from a left-wing bias for over 40 years on the mainline networks. Anything other than the predictable liberal interpretation of current events by the networks appears to be conservative when it's only a balanced presentation.
[/quote]

Remember this: Media outlets are only as liberal as the major corporations that own them.

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!