My Take on Talk Radio: Part II

As noted in Part I of this series, long hours of driving around listening to talk radio has--if I say so myself--made me a connoisseur of this medium (or, for the French-averse, aficionado). For purposes of s***s and giggles, I developed a Ten List of talk radio programs, ranking them from worst to first. My criteria for judgment is the total package: content, presentation and entertainment value. Talk shows compete with the other stations on the dial, both against music and other talk formats. If the program doesn’t get your attention or if the presentation puts you to sleep (not a good thing for commuters), then content quality of the show is wasted.

The worst talk show fellas were covered in Part I, and this one will hit the Middle of the Pack. Another thing. If I haven’t listened to it, I can’t comment on it. I literally heard Air America for the first time just a few days ago. Al Franken was on and he was grousing about the Democratic Party not being liberal enough, and lobbying for Howard Dean as DNC chair. The next day Janeane Garofolo, in the absurdly named "Majority Report", was trying to rally the progressive troops in calling the Ohio presidential results illegitimate. While I’m sorely tempted to rank Fringe Radio No. 11, fifteen minutes of painfully listening to these harangues is not enough time to pass judgment. Other guys I haven’t listened to much or at all are Neal Boortz, Glenn Beck, Oliver North, Mike Gallagher, Gordon Liddy, etc. So, without any more ado, drumroll please...

Number 8. Dennis Prager/Bill Bennett.
One is a conservative Jew and the other is a conservative Christian.  Sadly, both are equally boring.  While I agree with many of their positions, most of which are well thought out and well reasoned, there’s something in their voice modulation or delivery that renders me unable to pay attention to what they’re saying for more than about five minutes.  With Bill Bennett, it’s worse because he’s on during commuting hours, endangering more drivers.  What also bothers me about Bennett is that the royalties he earned from the Book of Virtues were used to subsidize his gambling vice.

Number 7.  Bill O’Reilly.
He may have been born in New York but his ego hails from Texas.  He’s actually not too terrible as a talk show host, but this massive and disturbing alien presence known as "O’Reilly’s Opinion of Himself" fatally detracts from his program.  Some of his banter with gal cohort Edie is okay but much of it makes me cringe.  I have a high tolerance level for sexism but O’Reilly hits my limit consistently.  In retrospect, it should have of come as no surprise that he was slapped with a sexual harassment lawsuit.

His show doesn’t get too ideological and he does deal fairly straight on the facts.  He has a good voice for radio and his punchy style works well for the medium.  I’ll also give him credit to him for making me think twice about some issues, in particular the death penalty.  He’s pretty much against it and I can see the value of putting a murderer in prison for life, provided that there is a requirement for hard labor.  But then again, there are some crimes and some criminals where, to me, the death penalty is just fine.  The hard left really hates O’Reilly, which for me is mark in plus column for him.  Soros-financed * Media Matters, edited by self-admitted liar David Brock, has some sort of jones against O’Reilly, which can only but help the show.

Number 6.  Rush Limbaugh.
He is still the godfather of talk radio, but he is in decline.  I used to listen to him quite a bit in the 1990s, but I found myself listening less and less in the 21st century and I’m not exactly sure why.  Maybe it’s because I already know his positions so well.  Maybe his show stagnated.  Maybe the oxycontin and other drugs affected show quality.  Maybe it’s the emergence of newer high-quality shows which have lessened his influence and uniqueness.  It used to be Rush and a passel of dwarfs on talk radio, but that has changed.  Maybe it’s because he hasn’t evolved very much since coming onto the scene.  Maybe it’s because he seldom takes callers who really challenge his points of view; that’s unfortunate, because his show sparkles when he gets into a good debate.  Maybe the blogosphere has cut into his domain.

Anyhow, I listen to him quite a bit less now but he remains a force.  Sometimes his analysis is as good as anyone’s out there and sometimes he misses the mark, but with 20 million listeners a week he’s tough to ignore.  He has the best voice in talk radio, and he has a flair for clearly articulating issues.  But to me, I can’t help feel a little betrayed in the wake of the drug flap and his third divorce.  I remember back in the 1992 debates when George H.W. Bush was trying to expose Bill Clinton’s character, saying "you can’t be one kind of man and another kind of president".  That phrase stuck with me because I believe there’s a lot of truth to it.  Compartmentalizing is a myth.  Character is an issue, whether you’re president or a radio talk show host or a janitor.  I can’t but help question the character of a man who’s a three-time loser at marriage and who became a drug addict.  When I listen to him now, those niggling thoughts remain.

Is Rush a credible news source?  To the extent that he is conveying news from credible sources, the answer is yes.  Does Rush play up facts that enforce his point of view and minimize facts that don’t?  Yes.  Does he get his facts wrong?  At times, yes, but when you’re cranking out 35,000 to 40,000 words per show, it happens.  Does Rush make corrections?  Yes, which is something his critics seldom point out.  By the way, the sheer volume of words and the fact that hosts can later amend, correct and clarify in subsequent shows makes criticism difficult.  Also, those who just read transcripts miss important inflections that don’t translate to the written page.  Does Rush lie?  He may, but it’s hard to know. Does Rush engage in uncivil discourse?  Yes, at times, but his usual targets in this regard are the hardcore partisans and those near the margins of the political spectrum.  Incidentally, a huge chunk of Rush’s content is pointing out the incivility of the Left, and the examples are legion.  Can Rush be polarizing and bullying?  Polarizing, yes, but bullying only to the thin-skinned who have a hard time accepting criticism.

Number 5. National Public Radio.
I was questioning whether I should include NPR, but what the heck.  They’re on radio, they’re talking and I listen to them, so they’re in.  While they rate high on content, they’re low on the other criteria. I’ve only listened to the Travis Smiley Show twice but I liked his program and regret that he quit.  Oft times NPR has informative and enlightening segments, and other times they’ll have some obscure issue or second-rate poet or writer or musician and the time just flat drags.  Their bias ranges from subtle to blatant.  I remember a segment that fawned over Pablo Neruda, never mind that he was an enthusiast of Joseph Stalin. [Update:  To be fair, he later became disillusioned with Stalin but remained a committed communist].  The reporters on NPR have that same distinct delivery:  slow, professorial monotones that give us unwashed listeners the feeling we’re being talked down to.  Some may be surprised that I rate NPR higher than Limbaugh, but that should tell you how far Rush has fallen.  But if I had to choose between Limbaugh and NPR, it’s NPR because it’s helpful to know where the Left is getting its news and I already pretty much know Rush is going to say.

Part III will cover my top four.

* David Brock has denied receiving money from Soros.  David Horowitz has noted that Moveon.org (which is heavily Soros-financed) sends money to Media Matters, and that the same cast of characters who fund Soros-friendly 527s also fund Brock's outfit.

An article by Byron York that appeared in the June 14, 2004 National Review describes Media Matters' funders, one of whom is Leo Hindrey Jr., former CEO of scandal-ridden Global Crossings, who contributes to Democratic causes.  "[Hindrey] says he sees Media Matters as part of a coordinated action on the left. 'I thought this was a piece of the puzzle,' Hindrey says. 'There are people like Mike Lux [a Democratic consultant who runs an important ad agency], who are into the strategy point of view, there's Podesta, who's into the think tank/intellectual side, and I think the third part of the triangle is David's initiative.'"

Peter Lewis, who gave nearly as much to 527s as George Soros, is a Media Matters benefactor according to Horowitz.  The New York Times also notes how Media Matters intersects with other progressive groups.

Comments

[Katherine]

Wow. Let's just repeat this:

Bill O'Reilly:
"His show doesn’t get too ideological and he does deal fairly straight on the facts."

Rush Limbaugh:
"Is Rush a credible news source? To the extent that he is conveying news from credible sources, the answer is yes. Does Rush play up facts that enforce his point of view and minimize facts that don’t? Yes. Does he get his facts wrong? At times, yes, but when you’re cranking out 35,000 to 40,000 words per show, it happens. Does Rush make corrections? Yes, which is something his critics seldom point out. By the way, the sheer volume of words and the fact that hosts can later amend, correct and clarify in subsequent shows makes criticism difficult."

NPR: "Their bias ranges from subtle to blatant. I remember a segment that fawned over Pablo Neruda, never mind that he was an enthusiast of Joseph Stalin...Some may be surprised that I rate NPR higher than Limbaugh, but that should tell you how far Rush has fallen."

To which I can only quote The Simpsons. Specifically, Poochie's final words on the Itchy & Scratchy Show:

I have to go now. My planet needs me.

Seriously--if you consider Rush Limbaugh to be comparable to NPR as a reliable news source, and consider Bill O'Reilly to be less biased and play straighter with the facts than NPR,(or even to be comparable) you are too blinded by partisanship to reliably and independently evaluate information.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Bird Dog, I'm waiting for the next instalment. I listen to NPR, so don't feel bad, I even read the NYT. I just hope John Bachelor is in the top four. He is on WABC which is available on the internet and is the best show on talk radio.

[Jadegold]

Jeez, I wasn't going to comment until I read the utterly ridiculous panning of NPR.

Look if you want talk radio hosts that shout at you or screen or berate call-in guests--NPR isn't for you. OTOH, if you want topics--of varied interests--discussed in 'indoor voice' tones, you might want to give NPR a listen. You'll rarely, if ever, hear the hosts of the show trying to outshout the other or interrupt.

As for profiling 'second-rate' writers or musicians, BD misses badly. The function of NPR is to introduce its listeners to those authors, movies, artists who might not be mainstream. Guess what? That's where the gems are to be found. Personally speaking, I first heard about several authors and musicians on NPR who couldn't get arrested at the time but are now famous or nearly so. Authors like Michael Chabon, George Pellecanos or Jonathan Lethem to name a few. Just the other day was an outstanding retrospective of the weirdly wonderful Arrow Brown who sought to make Chicago the new Motown for soul music.

Further, on controversial issues, NPR will usually have both sides of the issue represented and they'll generally devote more than 3 and half minutes to it.

Heck, even the psychopath John Derbyshire--who once advocated the murder of Chelsea Clinton--has been on NPR several times to flack his non-political books. And not once has an NPR host questioned him about his fascist political views--nor did any of the call-in guests.

As for BD's silliness about Pablo Neruda--it reveals a poor grasp of history and Neruda as well as the all-too-common tendency to see everything in terms of black and white without any understanding of context or nuance. It's cheap, trailer-park McCarthyism, designed to obfuscate and divide.

[Edward]

I suspect, Charles, if you listen to more and more Air America, whether you agree with anything they say or not, you will eventually begin to realize just how phenomenally ideological Bill O'Reilly sounds to many Americans and that volume of words Limbaugh offers is not the reason every 100,000th statement or so he says strikes you as inaccurate...it's because he's lying.

[hilzoy]

"Does Rush engage in uncivil discourse?  Yes, at times, but his usual targets in this regard are the hardcore partisans and those near the margins of the political spectrum."

I do not count as a constant listener, but I probably listen to him more than most liberals, probably because of the same odd psychological quirk that leads me ta try to engage airport proselytizers in theological debate. In my experience, his targets are usually 'liberals', and his charges are usually false.

[Edward]

bullying only to the thin-skinned who have a hard time accepting criticism

vs.

slow, professorial monotones that give us unwashed listeners the feeling we’re being talked down to

Again, isn't much of what folks assume is a differenct in substance really just a difference in style? I mean switch those two descriptions...who's really thin-skinned? The liberal who objects to Rush calling them a "traitor" or "coward" or the conservative who thinks the NPR person is intentionally being elitist?

[Charles Bird]

Seriously--if you consider Rush Limbaugh to be comparable to NPR as a reliable news source, and consider Bill O'Reilly to be less biased and play straighter with the facts than NPR,(or even to be comparable) you are too blinded by partisanship to reliably and independently evaluate information.

You've so completely misread the post it's hard to fathom, Katherine. As I wrote in first paragraph, I ranked on the total package. Of course NPR is a more reliable news source. That's their primary mission. They're supposed to be objective purveyors of news. They're not supposed to be in the opinion business. I never said that NPR and Rush were comparable as reliable news sources. I never wrote that Bill O'Reilly that less biased or played straighter with the facts. Your so-called conclusions were conjured out of thin air.

[JerryN]

Charles - you lost me with this:

While I’m sorely tempted to rank Fringe Radio No. 11, fifteen minutes of painfully listening to these harangues is not enough time to pass judgment.

49% is a a big fringe.

[Phil]

What also bothers me about Bennett is that the royalties he earned from the Book of Virtues were used to subsidize his gambling vice.

It's the free market at work!

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

The liberal who objects to Rush calling them a "traitor" or "coward" or the conservative who thinks the NPR person is intentionally being elitist?

Obviously, someone who has been spending way too much time listening to Air America. :)

[Charles Bird]

49% is a a big fringe.

Big assumption that AA and the Democratic Party are in synch, especially given that Franken wants the party to move left and Garofolo thinks the Ohio result is illegitimate. In the short time I listened, there was a guest from The Nation and Franken was talking about an upcoming guest who also happened to write for The Nation.

Timmy,
Never heard of Bachelor, so he's not in my top four.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Never heard of Bachelor, so he's not in my top four.

Well there is still time. Listen here daily from 10:00 pm to 1:00 am (EST). The first hour is usually the best.

[Bernard Yomtov]

The liberal who objects to Rush calling them a "traitor" or "coward" or the conservative who thinks the NPR person is intentionally being elitist?

Obviously, someone who has been spending way too much time listening to Air America. :)

Dismiss it if you like, Timmy, but there is something to Edward's point. I quit listening to Limbaugh about fifteen years ago. Why? He announced that all those who had opposed the Vietnam War were subversives. That was it for me.

Was I thin-skinned to take offense?

[Jadegold]

especially given that Franken wants the party to move left

Before this meme becomes more entrenched, it's not a given Franken has advocated this. It is an assumption on BD's part due to Franken's comments that Dean might be a good DNC head. Franken has said this in an aside--given Dean's ability to tap new ways of reaching new and younger voters, not necessarily that he'll move the party left. Franken's 'big push' is for Dems to try and match the rightwing's huge media infrastructure.

[John Thullen]

"self-admitted liar David Brock"

It's true. He was better and more effective when he was just a liar. Less biased, too.

I suspect many of his lies live to this day in the minds of millions. Funny, I didn't believe him BEFORE he was self-admitted.

Charles, I agree that much of Air America is unlistenable. But I love their bias.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Dismiss it if you like, Timmy

Okay, done.

[Katherine]

I did notice the rankings. I got the impression that: 1) they were pretty close together, 2) Bill O'Reilly was docked for a gi-normous ego rather than for bias, and 3) a few years ago Rush would've beaten NPR, and 4) there are other conservative talk radio shows that will beat NPR (unless you have a thing for 1010 WINS or whatever the news, traffic & weather station is in your area.)

IMO, putting them even close together is ludicrous--unless you are rating them on completely different criteria, in which case it's odd to put them on the same list about Talk Radio.

It seems to me there are two possible approaches: either you draw a bright line between news and opinion, in which case news should obviously be given more weight, and they should not be on the same top ten list at all. But it is conservatives who seem to me to say most often that objectivity is a fiction, and we're better off when journalists admit they're biased--at least then they're honest about it.

Or, you evaluate people individually and ask two separate questions of each: how liberal/conservative are they? And how fair and factually reliable are they?

I lean more towards the second approach. In that case: NPR is somewhat liberal. Rush is extremely conservative. But more importantly, NPR is much, much more fair and much, much, more factually reliable.

Straight news sources are usually more fair and reliable than people who express an opinion, but that is not always true. I trust Eugene Volokh or Dahlia Lithwick to analyze a Supreme Court opinion or legal argument better than any NY Times reporter. Same goes for Brad DeLong or Gary Becker on economics (I also trust Wall Street Journal news reporters much more than the NY Times news staff, whereas I only trust the Wall Street Journal editorial page to contradict their own news pages.) I trust many bloggers, many Op-Ed writers, and the entire fake news team at the Daily Show more than anyone at CNN or MSNBC, to say nothing of Fox. I trust the New Yorker and the Economist magazine, who often combine reporting an opinion, more than most news sources out there. Bill Moyers definitely expresses an opinion but he's fairer and more reliable and tells you much more than a Wolf Blitzer or Lou Dobbs....I could go on.

Anyway, it seems to me you have to pick one approach or another. Either:

1) there's a bright line between news and opinion, and news is understood to be much, much more reliable even if it's the dreaded "MSM". Or,
2) you evaluate all media people according to some universal standard of fairness and accuracy and whether they leave you better or worse informed--whether they're opinion writers or not.

You could also maybe make a case for some sort of hybrid approach. (in which case it'd be useful to explain). But what you (this is a general "you") shouldn't do is switch back and forth randomly or as suits your purposes. That leads to misunderstandings and arguments that don't really get anywhere.

"Does Rush engage in uncivil discourse? Yes, at times, but his usual targets in this regard are the hardcore partisans and those near the margins of the political spectrum."

Tell me, has he given up "feminazi"? I've heard the justification that he only uses it to describe advocates of as many abortions as possible. I used to listen to him occasionally, years ago, and he did not, in fact, use it that way at all....

1) we prefer vagithugs
2) I'm trying to imagine Corey Flintaugh or whoever from NPR referring to "republiconazis" or "Bushitler" and it's just not working.

(note: joking about this last part.)

[Katherine]

(also: you don't really think Air America is worse than Michael Savage do you? I'm guessing that was just a passing joke...)

[spc67]

Bird,

I think what has happened to Rush is a combination of two things, first, the blogosphere has made him go from being ahead of the news curve to behind it, making him less valuable and second,because Democrats now have far lees influence over political discourse, his shouting seems over the top. In short he's a victim of his own success.

Air America is a joke. Not worthy of discussion.

NPR is something different than the other members of your list, not sure it belongs.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Bill Moyers definitely expresses an opinion but he's fairer and more reliable....

Bill Moyers is a hack pure and simple. Bill was a hack when he lied for LBJ and has never changed his spots. Bill once hinted (on the Charlie Rose Show, if I remember correctly) that George Bush might initiate a coup if not re-elected. Fairer and more reliable, Katherine what universe are you living in? Just asking.

[Nate]

Charles Bird on Rush Limbaugh:
"Is Rush a credible news source? To the extent that he is conveying news from credible sources, the answer is yes. Does Rush play up facts that enforce his point of view and minimize facts that don’t? Yes. Does he get his facts wrong? At times, yes, but when you’re cranking out 35,000 to 40,000 words per show, it happens. ... Does Rush lie? He may, but it’s hard to know. Does Rush engage in uncivil discourse? Yes, at times, but his usual targets in this regard are the hardcore partisans and those near the margins of the political spectrum. Incidentally, a huge chunk of Rush’s content is pointing out the incivility of the Left, and the examples are legion. Can Rush be polarizing and bullying? Polarizing, yes, but bullying only to the thin-skinned who have a hard time accepting criticism."

Rush Limbaugh, in his own words:
"What we're talking about here in these confirmation hearings of Alberto Gonzales that start on Thursday, we're talking about the perpetrators of 9/11 ... What these people are going to do is take what happened at Abu Ghraib and defend the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and at the same time mount a defense for Al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners, acting practically as their defense counsel against the United States and seeking essentially the release of these prisoners so that they are free to commit further acts against the United States."

"The thing that we all need to ask, and it's a serious point here: "What is it about liberalism that compels liberals to come to the defense of mass murderers, whether they're home grown murderers or terrorists?" This is a very sick and perverse mentality. ... Why do the Democrats in the Senate not want to get to the bottom of the people who attacked this country and wiped them out? What is it about the Democrats in the Senate that want to essentially make them participate in an effort that will free these people, so that they can again plan and conduct possibly more mayhem against Americans?"

Both quotes via hilzoy's talk radio post a couple days ago.

Rush Limbaugh is LITERALLY accusing the Senate Democrats of attempting to free the "perpetrators of 9/11", then calls "liberals" "sick and perverse," accuses "liberals" of (again) trying to free terrorists, so they can "plan and conduct possibly more mayhem against Americans."

Wow. Just wow.

[lily]

Rush limbaugh does nothing except bully. I'm not a thin skinned person. I taught middle school for fifteen years and you can't do that if your skin is thin. But I have good manners and I know a bully when I hear one. I listen to NPR because they treat the listeners as if they are intelligent and capable of following a thought for more than three seconds. Rush goes right past thought to emotions, negative ones.
I said on a diferent thread that I think people are responsible for the behavior of the commentors they support. Rush wouldn't be on the air slandering and lying (see hilzoy's post below for specific examples) if it wasn't for his listeners. Maybe people who listen a lot get desensitized--but that's part of how distructive he is. Desensitized or not the people who support him are supporting his meanness to people and his degradation of political discourse.
I have not heard Air America.

[Kathrine]

not the same universe as you, clearly...:)

He really said that? That is a pretty wacky comment if you're remembering accurately. But when someone's got a thirty year history as a good journalist one wacky comment alone cannot outweigh it.

NOW is very liberal, has always been liberal, and I don't think Moyers would deny it. But you have half a point: I read some of the more recent transcripts and there has been a decline. I would say that while he will gets his basic facts right and covers substantive issues that other TV shows just ignore--at some point between when I used to watch and the 2004 transcripts I'm looking at, he stopped giving the other side's arguments any kind of fair hearing.

(I know him less from NOW than his special series, like the work he's done on drug policy.)

I'm not sure if it declined past Blitzer (who is shallow, shallow, shallow) and Dobbs (who slants things relentlessly, especially on outsourcing and immigration.) Don't have time to look up a years worth of transcript.

Also, I think we have a different standard of being a "hack". My definition has relatively little to do with political extremism, more to do with keeping to the party line, saying things or making arguments you don't honestly believe or haven't honestly evaluated against the known facts, things like that. Paul Begala and James Carville, not Bill Moyers.

[Jadegold]

Limbaugh isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. Look, he's a cheap opportunist who got in on the ground floor of the Clinton-hater cottage industry. The weird thing is he seems to embody all the things conservatives seem to hate--the many failed marriages, the draft-dodging, the living off welfare, the drug abuse, etc. Here's someone who professed this great worship of Reagan but never registered to vote until 1990.

But should we really be surprised who conservatives support as their standard-bearer?

I have not heard Air America.

You're not missing much. Al Franken's heart is in the right place but he's not a radio personality. Not everyone can hold and engage a listener for 3 hours a day; unfortunately, Franken can't.

Air America, as a concept, is needed. But they're going to need better personalities. It's not that their current crop of hosts don't know the issues; it's that they're not particularly good speakers/interviewers.

If Air America were smart--they'd seek out folks like Tavis Smiley or Bob Edwards or others who do have the experience.

[John Thullen]

Rush Limbaugh is an extremely low-grade demagogue. Unfortunately, and tellingly, Air America just can't demagogue as well. It's really too bad. I don't think their heart is in it.

What's cool about the whole thing is that Rush is not listened to quite as much any longer among the conservative elite in the blogophere, when they really should be sinking to their knees and kissing the hems of Rush and his 20 million listeners standing in the voting booth with them.

Same with David Brock. Liar believed and then not believed. Unfortunately extraordinarily believed and effective when he lied and now rejected and ineffective when he tells different and less convenient lies. But his editors and publishers and enablers like Rush and Drudge and, oh, just about everyone back then were certainly not biased in the least.

[John Thullen]

Timmy, it's lucky for you and me that Katherine is very nearby in the very same universe.

What a varied, interesting universe.

[lily]

If you go over to Not Geniuses he has an extended analysis of rightwing extremist talk shows, their purpose, and their effect on American politics. Don't dismiss them. The message they preach is hate, hate, hate and the hatred is aimed at you and me, their fellow citizens. It isn't just talk. It's the groundwork for the use of violence and the misuse of the legal system to intimidate and silence people.
There are two effective ways to deal with a bully: stand up to them, and make fun of them. What we need is a left wing Fox TV show that has a Limbaugh parody with an actor that starts off strident, goes to shrill, them begins to froth, spray spit, and gulp medication while aides interrupt with messages. "It's your forth wife on the phone!, It's your dealer, he wants his money" and so on. The OReilly parody would be the O'Liar Show and his guests could interrupt him and shout "Shut up" at him. And so on.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

My definition has relatively little to do with political extremism, more to do with keeping to the party line, saying things or making arguments you don't honestly believe or haven't honestly evaluated against the known facts

You mean like when Bill was LBJ's Press Secretary?

[Katherine]

I wanted to try to get a random sampling of limbaugh sentences on "liberals" but I'd apparently have to pay him money, so no way. These are from mediamatters, so they've picked the worst quotes, but I see no reason to believe they are inaccurate.

"The answer to this is they're just livid -- the press, the leftists in this country are just upset that there are not enough deaths to get people outraged and protesting in the streets against the war. They're mad that these doctors are saving lives. They want deaths!" (12/9/04)

"I mean, if there is a party that's soulless, it's the Democratic Party. If there are people by definition who are soulless, it is liberals -- by definition. You know, souls come from God. You know? No. No. You can't go there."
(6/3/04)

"CALLER: It was like a college fraternity prank that stacked up naked men --

LIMBAUGH: Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of need to blow some steam off?"
(This one's pretty well known. He is talking, obviously about Abu Ghraib. 5/4/04)

"I'm going to tell you is what's good for Al Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party in this country today. That's how you boil this down. And it doesn't have to be Al Qaeda. What's good for terrorists is good for John Kerry. All you got to do is check the way they react." (3/15/04)

"Some of these babes, I'm telling you, like the sexual harassment crowd. They're out there protesting what they actually wish would happen to them sometimes." (4/26/04)

"Will it be the Democratic insiders' dream of Kerry and John Edwards? Or maybe the media's dream team of Kerry and John McCain. Or will it be the femi-Nazi dream team of Kerry and Hillary." (4/5/04)

"Oh, if you missed the "morning update" today, the femi-Nazis have really stepped into it. Karen Hughes just said some of the -- well, the most innocent, true, great stuff. And the femi-Nazis have assumed she was comparing them to the terrorists, which she wasn't. But now they've linked themselves with the terrorists." (4/29/04)

"LIMBAUGH: And remember, back then in the '80s, one of the accompanying -- there -- there -- there -- there was a lot of fear-mongering going on around -- about AIDS, as a lot of people were scared about it. And one of the things that -- that the -- the AIDS activists said regularly back then was, oh, this is only a matter of time before it spreads to the heterosexual community. It's only a matter of time. And they used that as -- as one of the weapons to try to get people like Reagan to start talking about it from their standpoint. And of course it -- it hasn't. It -- it didn't, and it hasn't, other than in Africa, and in Africa it is -- it is being spread not just by -- it -- it -- it's promiscuity that -- that -- that spreads this, if you want to know the truth. It's promiscuity.
But it -- it hasn't made that jump to the heterosexual community." (6/9/04)

You get the idea.

Color me a think-skinned, hardcore partisan near the edge of the political spectrum who's unable to accept criticism.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

NOW is very liberal, has always been liberal, and I don't think Moyers would deny it.

Benefit of the doubt and all, you probably should have been paying more attention to what Bill has been saying.

[liberal japonicus]

Unbelievable. The topic is talk radio and we have to defend Bill Moyers? I stand amazed.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Katherine, since I don't listen to Rush, never have, I don't know anything about him, but can we start pulling quotes out of context and start running with them for everyone. Just asking.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Unbelievable. The topic is talk radio and we have to defend Bill Moyers? I stand amazed.

Well don't blame me, I didn't bring Bill into the mix, but I'm old enough remember the role Bill played in LBJ's Admin as well as his recent antics.

I'm still waiting for Bird Dog to mention someone I listen to other than NPR.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Unbelievable. The topic is talk radio and we have to defend Bill Moyers? I stand amazed.

We don't have to.

Timmy has to, because he can't defend Limbaugh. He'll be talking about Michael Moore next.

[John Thullen]

Lilly: Forget "shut up". Let's escalate the O'Reilly show to fistfights. He's an Irishman. He'd love it. And his ratings would rise because it's America.

I volunteer to coldcock him when he tells me I'm unAmerican. Right on the set. And our biases would be out front and thereby appreciated by the conservative elite in the blogosphere.

I'd save the Maker's Mark until afterward and even buy him one. It'd be like a John Ford movie.

I'd do the same to Rush, but he's a coward. Last time I saw him live on T.V. he ran down the aisle speechless after receiving an earful from a lesbian in the studio audience. I think he peed his pants.

[cleek]

The topic is talk radio and we have to defend Bill Moyers?

though tu quoque may be a logical fallacy, it does serve nicely to derail debate.

maybe someone can bring up that linguist again...

[Gromit]

Timmy the Wonder Dog at January 10, 2005 12:47 AM: Bill once hinted (on the Charlie Rose Show, if I remember correctly) that George Bush might initiate a coup if not re-elected.

Timmy the Wonder Dog at January 10, 2005 03:02 AM: Katherine, since I don't listen to Rush, never have, I don't know anything about him, but can we start pulling quotes out of context and start running with them for everyone. Just asking.

Huh.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Timmy has to, because he can't defend Limbaugh. He'll be talking about Michael Moore next.

I can't defend Limbaugh becasue I've never listened to him. I can take a few wacks at Bill because I know a little bit about him as well as having listened to him.

I like Michael Moore, he helped Bush win reelection but I've only seen one of Micky's videos.

[trostky]

Timmy,

I get my daily dose of Limbaugh on the way to work each morning, and the quotes from Mediamatters are in no way out of context. Rush -- who is an insanely talented rabble-rouser, as he showed during the Clinton years -- has degenerated into the worst sort of shill.

If we were to quibble with the rankings, I'd have to put O'Reilly far above Rush, because O'Reilly deals with reality for at least half of his on-air time.

[Jason]

Media Matters hasn't taken any money from George Soros, so I don't know how you can call it "Soros-financed," Mr. Bird. Or maybe it just speaks to the fact that you have little to no background information for your claims in this post and are just making stuff up?

[liberal japonicus]

Jason
Though I appreciate that you limit it to this post, I think you could have left off the last sentence.

[Fledermaus]

I used to listen to him quite a bit in the 1990s, but I found myself listening less and less in the 21st century and I’m not exactly sure why.

Because, as a supporter of the party in complete power now, you're expected to get stuff done. All Rush can do is ::insert non-PC term for a female dog::

[Fledermaus]

I would, if double posting is not verboten, to add my voice in defense of NPR.

While I would be willing to concede the argument that their editorial decisions are left-leaning - i.e. hour-long specials on people who grow organic carrots - if there were a sensible group who opposed organic carrots I think they would get their time, too.

[Fledermaus]

Finally, at risk of being banned for multiple posts ;) Edward hits on something I have been thinking about (sorry I'm a slow reader)

Again, isn't much of what folks assume is a different in substance really just a difference in style?

I think that the reason NPR irritates so many conservatives is what I like to call the 'smugness factor.' NPR is rather smug in the essence of "we know something you don't know, and we're going to tell you about it" True this could be a discussion of the thesis of Noam Chomsky's latest essay (don't start! ObWi has a thread for that!). I can listen and accept or dismiss the positions raised in such a program because I believe that NPR is offering them up for the public discourse and do not perceive the program as condescending.

On the other hand when the vast right wing talk radio conspiracy [sic] lashes into the "left" or "liberals" it seems to me like an us or them decision. The host is with the "us" if you agree with him you have people to watch your back, it is a kind of belonging.

My theory is not fully developed (mostly because I am neither smart, nor eloquent enough do develop it fully). I will refrain from arguing that NPR is superior to the VRWTRC but I will argue that, rather than the perceived leftist content, Charles, your main objection to NPR is the smugness in which it is delivered.

[Don Quijote]

NPR is not the left, never has been & never will be!!!!

If you want left wing radio, try Democracy Now!, you are not going to like it!

[heet]

BD has refined a posting technique on this blog... A technique in full view here. BD gives a few inches on Rush, admitting he's declined recently (!), and then badmouths NPR for imaginary crimes. Furthermore he trots out some lame Bill Moyers attack because 40 years ago he worked for a LBJ (relevence?). Problem is, there is no comparison in
1) audience numbers
2) level of rhetoric
3) bias
4) impact on national opinion

The liberals on this site are left defending a tiny fraction of radio shows for slight infractions of bias (except for AA of course). Why isn't BD defending Rush and those dummies instead of one-liner attacks on a nobody like Moyers? It's all distraction.

[Jadegold]

Let's see; Limbaugh makes some mistakes but who wouldn't in 3 hours? Limbaugh graciously corrects all his mistakes which are minor in nature anyway.

NPR, OTOH, supports Stalin.

I don't see any distraction, Heet.

[liberal japonicus]

Why isn't BD defending Rush and those dummies instead of one-liner attacks on a nobody like Moyers? It's all distraction.

Well, I was hoping that the change from BD to Charles Bird was a sign. This may not be him raising a distraction, this may be what he actually thinks. I found his observation that

The reporters on NPR have that same distinct delivery: slow, professorial monotones that give us unwashed listeners the feeling we’re being talked down to.

very interesting. It tells me that if you want to make a point with him, you had better not condescend or you are not going to get through. And at least he's honest enough to note that these are things he listens to rather than claim that he doesn't listen to them, so he is baffled as to why people think they are so bad. Though I have to say, I thought the Neruda/Stalin thing to be a stretch, though, again, he might actually think that Neruda's own personal history is no excuse. I just hope he avoids NPR when Chomsky passes away, or at least isn't driving.

[Edward]

NPR is not the left, never has been & never will be!!!!

Amen. NPR is balanced. The Left is something that's been all but totally wiped out in the US. Hillary Clinton is the center. Kucinich is about as left as we get anymore, but hope springs eternal that that can change.

[Nutthuis]

So a self-admitted liar who confesses his lies and seeks contrition is suspect while someone who is cought in a lie and refuses to admit he is lying is morally superior. That's why con men deserve our trust.

[Nutthuis]

So a self-admitted liar who confesses his lies and seeks contrition is suspect while someone who is cought in a lie and refuses to admit he is lying is morally superior. That's why con men deserve our trust.

[Slartibartfast]

Lemme see...I'm a conservative who despises Savage, is quite annoyed by Rush and Boortz, very annoyed by Hannity, and isn't quite sure what to make of Pat Campbell, yet. Oh, and I like NPR.

Now, what's that make me? Did I mention I haven't the slightest interest in Air America? That Garofalo, Franken and the rest together aren't comedically fit to hold the jockstrap of Jon Stewart?

I don't have all that much appreciation for Stewart, and I've only caught brief glimpses of his show. What he does is not to be confused with news, but I don't think he's presenting himself as simply a newscaster, either. I did catch the segment of Crossfire that he was on, and what he said was bang on: endless bickering and finger-pointing is ruining American politics.

Maybe we ought to equip anyone who wants to argue in the political arena with dueling pistols, and set aside fields in which they can settle arguments in a far more civilized fashion than they're currently doing. I imagine this would have a marked effect on the level of civility in government, after the first few dozen fatalities.

[Slartibartfast]

I should also note that I don't necessarily think that NPR is balanced, just that they're less unbalanced. And I mean that in at least two different senses of the word.

[liberal japonicus]

Lemme see...I'm a conservative who despises Savage, is quite annoyed by Rush and Boortz, very annoyed by Hannity, and isn't quite sure what to make of Pat Campbell, yet. Oh, and I like NPR.

So, can we expect your top ten list soon?

[Bernard Yomtov]

I can't defend Limbaugh becasue I've never listened to him.

OK, then. What do you think about the quotes provided by hilzoy? Wait, I know:

since I don't listen to Rush, never have, I don't know anything about him, but can we start pulling quotes out of context and start running with them for everyone.

If you don't listen, how can you say they are out of context? And what context could they possibly be in that would make them acceptable?

[Phil]

Bill once hinted (on the Charlie Rose Show, if I remember correctly) that George Bush might initiate a coup if not re-elected. TTWD, 1/9/05, 7:47pm

. . . can we start pulling quotes out of context and start running with them for everyone. Just asking. TTWD, 1/9/05, 10:05pm

Looks like you didn't bother to actually wait for permission, I guess.

[Slartibartfast]

So, can we expect your top ten list soon?

No. Please, no.

[Charles Bird]

It is an assumption on BD's part due to Franken's comments that Dean might be a good DNC head.

No, Jade. Franken specifically said in the short time that I listened to him that he thought the party should move left.

Katherine, I wasn't even sure if I should've included NPR since their mission is different from the other talk formats. If your primary objective is to hear news, then NPR's your bag. By the time I'm in the car, I've already gotten my fill of news, so I'm more interested in news analysis. Your take on talk radio is obviously different. One other thing. I mentioned "content" in my criteria but I purposely didn't specify the type of content, which could be either news content or opinion content. I probably could have explained that a little better at the outset.

On a side note, I agree with hilzoy that Rush went too far when commenting about the Gonzalez hearings. That's one of the reasons why he's down to number 6.

Media Matters hasn't taken any money from George Soros, so I don't know how you can call it "Soros-financed," Mr. Bird. Or maybe it just speaks to the fact that you have little to no background information for your claims in this post and are just making stuff up?

From CBS News via Command Post:

George Soros provides funds to far left organizations like Media Matters - which bashes Bush while it pays the bills for Duncan Black. Duncan Black writes as the anonymous "Atrios" at the heavily-read Bush-bashing weblog "Eschaton."

So the answer is, Jason, no, I didn't make stuff up. Did you or Brock? To be fair, if you click through to the CBS News link, the above sentence isn't there. I suspect it used to be there and they removed it at some later time without noting the correction. They've done this sort of thing before. Perhaps Brock could open his books to settle the matter. If there is credible confirmation that "to date, neither Media Matters nor its president and CEO David Brock has received any money from Soros or from any organization with which he is affiliated", then I will strike my statement.

BD gives a few inches on Rush, admitting he's declined recently (!), and then badmouths NPR for imaginary crimes. Furthermore he trots out some lame Bill Moyers attack because 40 years ago he worked for a LBJ (relevence?).

What imaginary crimes, heet? By the way, I haven't said one word about Moyers.

NPR, OTOH, supports Stalin.

I thought you were interested in accuracy, Jade. It was Neruda who rapsodized about Stalin, not NPR.

[Charles Bird]

Ack! Note to self. Hit the damn preview button.

[liberal japonicus]

*sigh*
from David Horowitz' blog (!)
In my description of Brock as having been funded by "Soros & Co." I constructed my sentence a little carelessly (but only a little). Media Matters makes a big deal of this as a new Horowitz "lie" because Soros himself has not directly provided it funds.
-snip-
My original intention, in fact, was to refer to the "Soros crew" because I was aware that Peter Lewis, a billionaire who is a Soros crony and has funded one of Soros' 527 operations to the tune of $7 million is a funder of Brock and Media Matters. Moreover, Brock's operation is a self-conceived adjunct of Soros' agendas in the Democratic Party. But the construction I chose in my reponse -- "Soros & Co." -- implied that Soros himself directly funded Brock's operation. What I meant to indicate by "Soros & Co." is that the Brock operation is viewed by its funders as part of the leftist Shadow Party that Soros has constructed and that includes such organizations as Harold Ickes' Media Fund and John Podesta's Center for American Progress.

and from this link

In 1953 Neruda was awarded the Stalin Prize. He remained faithful to "el partido" when other intellectual had rejected Moscow's leash... However, Neruda's faith was deeply shaken in 1956 by Khrushchev's revelation at the Twentieth Party Congress of the crimes committed during the Stalin regime. His collection EXTRAVAGARIO (1958) reflects this change in his works. In it Neruda turned to his youth. He presents the reader with his daily life and examines critically his Marxist beliefs.

I'm not so up on Neruda (Lorca is my man, plus he was assasinated, so I don't have to worry about who he supported in 1947) but I do recommend you take a second and check some things before tossing them up.

[liberal japonicus]

btw, that's not to say that I view Horowitz as credible, but in this context, I hope that Chas will accept this as 'credible confirmation'

[Jadegold]

Well, well, WRT Media Matters/George Soros, it certainly appears BD was quite mistaken. But I think the larger question is why it would be wrong for George Soros to fund a group or organization? Certainly, the rightwing has levied a number of charges against Soros--including a few that are anti-semitic (Tony Blankley) or perilously libelous (Dennis Hastert).

[Bernard Yomtov]

Soros-financed Media Matters, edited by self-admitted liar David Brock,

If you don't like Brock, fine. But what is this "Soros-financed" business? I grow increasingly disturbed at attempts to paint Soros as some sort of disreputable character, a drug dealer or worse (see Blankley and Hastert).

[Iron Lungfish]

Limbaugh and company are thugs, liars, and demogogues, grunting and panting over the airwaves in heat for a kind of American fascism. They're not worth wasting this much time at ObWi when the next attorney general advocates the theory that the executive is above the law and the US government is contemplating the use of death squads in Iraq.

[Iron Lungfish]

edited by self-admitted liar David Brock

And may I add that anyone using "liar" as a slur while making a defense of talk radio is performing some incredible mental gymnastics.

[Jadegold]

Speaking of Soros, it appears Instacracker is attempting to smear Soros by accusing him of being a piker WRT tsunami relief efforts.

[heet]

Charles Bird

What imaginary crimes, heet? By the way, I haven't said one word about Moyers.

The crimes I refer to are "blatant" bias and condescension. I think you'll find those both occur in a much higher amount when listening to most any on your list ("condescension" being in the eye of the beholder). As for the Moyers comment, you are correct. I should have my coffee before commencing a rant.

[Bird Dog]

The crimes I refer to are "blatant" bias and condescension.

What I wrote were opinions, not indictments of crimes, imaginary or otherwise.

But what is this "Soros-financed" business?

Only that he had a major impact on the 2004 election, giving the progressive wing much more influence than it ordinarily would have. My opinions on Soros are here. While I commend him for his Open Society work, he's a strange bird who's a bit too megalomaniacal for my comfort.

[Anarch]

While I commend him for his Open Society work, he's a strange bird who's a bit too megalomaniacal for my comfort.

What's your opinion on, say, Richard Mellon Scaife?

[liberal japonicus]

Silly me, when you said "I will strike my statement", I wasn't thinking that I'd get a paragraph on the ins and outs of funding on the left, I was thinking something more like this

"I leapt before I looked and I let my desire to get in a zinger that was only tangentially related to my thesis override the preferable option of being accurate. Apologies."

Oh well, hope springs eternal...

[Charles Bird]

What's your opinion on, say, Richard Mellon Scaife?

Don't know much about him since he keeps pretty much to himself. He didn't do any favors to himself in the 1990s when he financed operations that played fast and loose with the facts.

[liberal japonicus]

The Scaife Foundation gave a total of over 2 million dollars to the Heritage Foundation in 2002 and 2003 as one example (go to the pdfs). Cato, Accuracy in Media, Bozell's Media Research Center are some others. Could you remember to preface them with the modifier "Scaife-financed" if you cite them? Your cooperation in this endeavour is appreciated.
m(__)m
(a Japanese emoticon for someone bowing)

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

If you don't listen, how can you say they are out of context?

I figured something came before and after them as well as the reputation of the source.

[rilkefan]

A very odd story maybe related to Scaife via Neiwert.

[Charles Bird]

Oh well, hope springs eternal...

The fact is that a credible news organization reported that Media Matters was Soros-funded, and I relied on that information. At some unknown point, CBS News disappeared the reference without comment. After learning this, "Soros-funded" was struck.

[MediumDave]

Amen. NPR is balanced. The Left is something that's been all but totally wiped out in the US. Hillary Clinton is the center. Kucinich is about as left as we get anymore, but hope springs eternal that that can change.

You know NPR is balanced when a liberal and a conservative can listen to the same article during All Things Considered, and they both think the story was biased towards the other side. I'm fairly liberal, my uncle fairly conservative, and NPR is the glue that bonds us.

Tavis Smiley is, or rather was, amazing. He would treat every guest with the same courtesy and candor, whether they were left, center or right. His radio show on NPR has been canceled, he walked out of the contract because he believed NPR wasn't pushing minority points of view enough, but his PBS show is still on, and still great.

And if you want a news discussion talk radio show, there is no better than Brian Lehrer on New York Public Radio, WNYC. He's on from 10-12 weekdays (via free online streaming), and he's amazing. GIve him a week, and you'll be hooked.