Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Everyone is getting on the anti-Rush bandwagon
As the forums neo-con I find it necessary to set the record straight about a phony news story that is currently spreading around the interwebs.
Media Matters took an excerpt from a Rush Limbaugh show and printed it out of context, thereby making a phony news story.
Rush did not say all soldiers who are anti-war are phony soldiers. He was specifically talking about a true phony soldier Jesse Macbeth and how the anti-war movement likes to call these sorts of people war heroes even though they have never seen combat or even been involved in the things they say they saw.
Rush is a lot of things, and he has the gift of being able to spin things, but he is not so stupid as to come out and say all anti-war soldiers are phony soldiers.
Right now the left and left-of-center sites are showing their true colors by reporting on what Media Matters wrote as if it were based on solid facts and not quotes taken out of context. As Rym and Scott have shown us there is much power in the editing of the spoken and written word.
My full write-up
Media Matters took an excerpt from a Rush Limbaugh show and printed it out of context, thereby making a phony news story.
Rush did not say all soldiers who are anti-war are phony soldiers. He was specifically talking about a true phony soldier Jesse Macbeth and how the anti-war movement likes to call these sorts of people war heroes even though they have never seen combat or even been involved in the things they say they saw.
Rush is a lot of things, and he has the gift of being able to spin things, but he is not so stupid as to come out and say all anti-war soldiers are phony soldiers.
Right now the left and left-of-center sites are showing their true colors by reporting on what Media Matters wrote as if it were based on solid facts and not quotes taken out of context. As Rym and Scott have shown us there is much power in the editing of the spoken and written word.
My full write-up
Comments
Regarding your message, I care very little for the output of most news media organizations (and even less for editorial or pundit media), so I have not had a chance to jump on such a bandwagon, nor did I know one existed. Thus, be of good cheer! Not everyone is getting on the bandwagon!
I do agree with you that it's sad that Mr. Limbaugh will wrongly get his name dragged through the mud after being misquoted by one of his opponents. This only affirms my low opinion of most news media. However, I also understand that he is in a position that he worked to achieve and that happens to be a magnet for such aggression, so I don't feel too bad for him. ;)
While it is true that information is extremely powerful, I don't believe there are actually all that many newspapers or other media organisations out there who's main goal is to manipulate the public opinion. They are companies, so they report what sells. A newspaper who's readers are conservative will not too often (ie almost never) print anything that goes against the poorly thought through opinions of their customers. They want to hear how stupid and wrong liberals are and how right they are and feel great about themselves. People avoid reflecting upon their opinions too much, because it is unpleasant to realize you were wrong.
I'd even go as far as to say the problem lies not within the media's biased reports, but in the low level of education of most readers. They read 'Guy A said B' and are either unable to even think that this might not be the whole story, or simply can't be bothered to look it up properly and do some research.
Yes, the media is wrong to do that. But if an industrialized, rich, wealthy western country has crappy public education like that, you cannot expect to have a significant percentage of dialectically educated citizens. This applies to basically every country: education sucks and people are too lazy to think for themselves. (I am, too. I openly admit: I find it a lot more convenient watching other people think)
Oh yeah, and, to be fair, what I said before about conservative media is of course not limited to them.
I don't care because I don't pay attention to any one media outlet; instead, I glean the story by browsing multiple sources with multiple slants. Such is the power of the intarwebs.
And I was really hoping this thread was about Canadian prog-rock sensation Rush.
No such luck.
Neil Peart = God.
This is such a good performance.
Rush Limbaugh can stop being an hypocrite.
"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods, which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."
It happens on both sides. = Deflection, "everyone is doing it" defense.
Perhaps you should focus on making sure your own side fixes their facts instead of calling out the other side. = Avoidance, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" defense. The idea that only the pure of heart can call out lies, bias and mistakes is a strawman argument that is used by people who prefer to deflect the truth rather than confront it.
But more on topic, I hate Rush. I think he's a despicable man with an evil agenda and a bully's attitude. But, if what you're saying is true, and only if, it's still not right. Two wrongs don't make a right. Let the man's actual words discredit him, not some bullshit. Quote mining is bullshit, no matter what side your attacking.
Congratulations, WiP, on the Gi-normous pwn.