CONNECT
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Friday 9 March 2012
“Limbaugh's apology, made under pressure and designed to safeguard his privilege, concedes that indisputable truth.”
A Welcome Return to Basic Standards
During his long career as the most famous talk radio host in modern history, Rush Limbaugh has only rarely apologized for his rhetoric — so when he does, it's worth pondering the contrition's deeper meaning. Was his apology last week for calling a Georgetown University student a "slut" just a shrewd move to undercut a potential defamation lawsuit? Was it a frightened response to an intensifying backlash from advertisers? Does it prove the power of the liberal political organizations who have an ideological ax to grind against Limbaugh?
The answer to all those queries is yes — but none of those factors is the genuine news of the matter. Instead, what makes Limbaugh's apology so important is its context. Capping off other similar brouhahas from across the mediasphere, Limbaugh's mea culpa — however insincere — is significant because it is proof that America may be both setting some basic standards for political discourse and rejecting the right-wing shrieks about "censorship" and "political correctness."
Consider what preceded Limbaugh's apology. Only a few weeks ago, MSNBC announced it had terminated its relationship with Pat Buchanan, who had become a television mainstay despite the Anti-Defamation League documenting his long record as an "unrepentant bigot." Just prior to that, Los Angeles radio station KFI suspended two hosts for calling Whitney Houston a "crack ho"; CNN suspended commentator Roland Martin for his homophobic Super Bowl tweets; and MSNBC suspended liberal host Ed Schultz for calling a competitor a "right-wing slut." And before that, there was the seminal big-bang moment that kicked off the whole trend: the removal of Glenn Beck from Fox News — a decision that traced its roots to an advertiser boycott after Beck insisted that President Obama has a "deep-seated hatred of white people."
In all of these examples, as with Limbaugh's "slut" comment, the speech in question set off a firestorm not just because it was ideologically extreme, but also because it was indisputably inappropriate.
To paraphrase the jurisprudential terms surrounding pornography, it crossed the line from merely offensive to overtly obscene.
Of course, this kind of slander was tolerated for decades without so much as a peep of objection from the media powers that be. Thanks to that silence, talk radio and cable television came to be wholly defined by such political obscenity — a development that made spectacularly lucrative careers for hate-speech demagogues.
That downward spiral seemed destined to continue because any time there was even a hint of protest, the conservative movement's powerful media intimidation machine trotted out self-righteous rants against "political correctness" and odes to the First Amendment. Looking to manufacture its own insipid version of "political correctness" that crushes dissent, this machine typically portrayed conservatives as victims, marshaling anti-censorship arguments to insinuate that bigotry, anti-Semitism, homophobia and sexism are somehow entitled to a constitutionally protected place in major media outlets.
Not surprisingly, this same argument is now being made by conservatives in defense of their disgraced heroes.
"He has every right to his ideas, as we all have the right to our own," wrote conservative Cal Thomas in an emblematic screed criticizing MSNBC for firing Buchanan. "It's called free speech."
It's certainly true that all Americans have a right to their own ideas and to advocate for those opinions on their own. But having one's ideas broadcast to millions of Americans over the public airwaves by major media corporations is not a right. It's a privilege.
Limbaugh's apology, made under pressure and designed to safeguard his privilege, concedes that indisputable truth. In doing so, the talk-radio icon is implicitly acknowledging a welcome change — one in which media executives, advertisers and the larger American audience are finally declaring that privileges can be withdrawn from those who violate the most basic standards of decorum.
Copyright Creators.com
Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
ABOUT David Sirota
David Sirota is a best-selling author of the new book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado.
9 comments on "A Welcome Return to Basic Standards"
March 11, 2012 11:05am
The world will be a cleaner place with Rush and company off the air, maybe then the majority can have a civil discourse on their differences. Scenes we would like to see.
March 10, 2012 9:36am
Well his talent on loan from GOD seems to be that GOD took it back like Sampson having his hair cut. His mouth runneth over with all sorts of blather without thinking. Yes the talent is done gone and left him kike a potato
(did I spell that correctly) bug exposed to sunlight. It is only a matter of time before El Rushbo self destructs like Madonna still trying to be famous without
the inspiration.
There is more retaliation for Rushes comment than the furvor over what the banks did.
March 09, 2012 6:36pm
Part 1. To protect their right wing hate monger extremist Republicans are falosely portraying Rush Limbaugh as a victim who is being denied his First Amendment rights.
Limbaugh has been lost at least 50 advertisers -- many of them influencial -- and at least two stations after calling Sandra Fluke "a slut" and "a prostitute" and saying since "she wants to government to pay for her sex" he and others should be permitted to watch her having sex.
Extremist conservatives -- like former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and political hatchet lady and hatemonger Ann Coulter -- deliberately and falsely tell their base that Limbaugh is having his First Amendment rights violated.
The First Amendment guarantees us freedom of speech, press, religion, to assemble and petition the government. As a US citizen, a natarulized at that, and a retired journalist, I strongly support all those riights.
I have previously stated I consider Rush Limbaugh a right wing extremist, a divisive hate monger and a degenerate. After all, he is a thrice divorced, four times married "family values" drug junkie.
But my strong disagreements with Limbaugh would still bring me to his defense if the government tried to silence him in violation of the First Amendment. Why? I have always said the real test of the amendment is not when you agree with the speech given, the story written about, the aired broacast piece, the religion practiced, the law being pushed or the petition presented. The real test comes when you strongly disagree with the side presenting these elements and with the proposals, speech, stories or broadcast pieces.
Because there is a limited number of stations to fill our airways and to protect the public -- including children being subjected to profanity or pornograph -- we license TV stations.
Of course, since the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission is limited to the US, you can get around that by being on satellite TV or radio. That is why Howard Stern can now broadcast things -- offensive to some -- that he could not when he was on regular radio.
But there limitations in the system. Because what you have to have to be on the air are TV and/or radio stations and/or networks to carry your programs. You also need sponsors to pay for the programs.
Limbaugh freedom of speech is not being silenced here by the government. I would immediately be on his side if that were the case.
March 09, 2012 6:27pm
The underlying fasct to all of this is that the majority of cancervatives think and act and are like Limpy, selfish, whimpering, cowardly, impotent loudmouth brats.
March 09, 2012 5:49pm
But Limbauh does not have a right to his radio show. He must live up to the two words he and other conservatives like to throw around a lot -- accountability and responsibility.
Limbaugh claims the "liberal press" doesn't do that. He cites example after example where he claims the media is soft on liberals. But he doesn't hold any conservatives accountable.
Can you imagine if a Thom Hartmann or a Rachel Maddow, an Ed Schultz or a Lawrence O'Donnell had called a conservative coe a "slut," a "prostitute" and said we wanted to see tapes of her having sex? Rush would have devoted his whole show -- and many others -- to victimize her and the Republican network of conservative Republicans he leads during the week days would be playing something somewhere 24/7.
BTW what liberal press? The one that didn't report in 2000 that George W. Bush was the ultimate "business Schlemiel" who had four oil companies and ran each into the ground. The one that didn't report he was repeatedly bailed out by the Saudis as his father was rising rapidly up the political ladder? The one that didn't report he dodged the Vietnam War in the Texas and Albama National Guard by using his father's friends? The one that didn't report that he went AWOL in the national guard? The one that tody doesn't report and put into proper context that the Republican congressional leaders and all of its presidential candidates favor the same failed policies -- tax cuts for billionaires and millionaires, massive deregulation and lax or no enforcement of our consumer financial regulatory laws.
Nor is this the first time Rush Limbaugh has done this kind of thing on the air, It's time for people to let his advertisers know a non apology, apology in which he laughs about it and starts underhandly attacking Sandra Fluke again is totally unacceptable. Please aid in the campaign and also spread the word, post on your social media sites and get your friends to help.
Ray A. Cohn, retired journalist.
March 10, 2012 8:51am
Really enjoyed this comment. I do disagree with the first sentence though in that the FCC does have guidelines. If he stays within them, he's accepted. This is true for anyone else too. If the rules need changing, one can, no matter what side of the fence, go back to accountability and responsibility. This means the dissenter's has the right to try to change the rules or boundaries.
Freedom of speech, as you know well as a journalist, also has it's limits. Somewhere the line is crossed , and when it is, sanctions must be applied. But if it were simple retribution for an opinion with which one disagrees, there is no line. It is protected.
I think your last paragraph is the crux. An excellent approach. We must act within the laws in place. We are a country of laws, as we have all become painfully aware as many pieces of legislation in this administration gradually erode the entire Bill of Rights, not just the First Amendment. So do what we can, while we are able to do so.
This goes back to the legitimate notion of responsibility and accountability. We have those obligations, and are remiss trying to pass them on to some other entity. I.e., if you don't like it, take responsible action and see it is carried through. Your approach would work. Don't try to pass the action to some bureaucrat. Do it yourself.
And if you run into walls that seem to be too difficult to scale -- consider the simple solution. Turn off the radio or change the station. The ultimate in being accountable for a responsible action.
March 09, 2012 10:31am
Because he has been forced, more than once, to apologize for this same type of rhetoric only goes to prove he will do it time and again. Therefore, we as a community with standards must force his removal from all forms of media. Since the Right Wing won't censor him in the name of decency, then everyone with a conscience must take action with the FCC force him off the air.
March 09, 2012 6:52pm
Call to action. David Sirota is absolutely right. Such behavior by Rush Limbaugh -- or anybody else on either side of the political spectrum -- should not be tolerated.
Please spread the word about information that I and others have posted and e-mailed our friends about. I encourage you to write/phone/e-mail advertisers who dropped him to say thank you. If the advertiser only suspended him and encourage the company to permanently discontinue sponsoring him. Also contact advertisers still backing him and encourage them to drop him,
Encourage you friends to do likewise. Also post your actions and related information on your social media websites and on those of sympathetic organizations. Bring back the accountability Rush Limbaugh talks about, but exempts himself from. Ray A. Cohn
March 09, 2012 6:41pm
One simple question. Why are Republican presidential candidates -- including front runner Mitt Romney and close competitor Rick Cantorum scared to criticize Rush Limbaugh for his offensive behavior.
Are they to politically chicken yp tske him on? Or does it reflect their attitude toward women?