PDA

View Full Version : Case against the case against Rush



Soflasnapper
03-07-2012, 04:53 PM
From Michael Kinsley, at Bloomberg, here. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-06/the-case-against-the-case-against-limbaugh-commentary-by-michael-kinsley.html) I think his reputation is as a screaming liberal (he played one on Crossfire against Pat Buchanan and the late 'prince of darkness,' Robert Novak).

I agree, and have said before that these demands of people that they address and denounce the offender du jour amount to Stalinist thought police lock-step demands.

Don't much care for them when they are ambushing Democrats to force denunciations of the radical du jour, and to be consistent, therefore must equally dislike the same done to the Republicans for righties out on the fringe, despite the temptation to enjoy seeing it done to certain prominent asses.

Shadenfreude, and all that.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> [...]These umbrage episodes that have become the principal narrative line of our politics are orgies of insincerity. Pols declare that they are distraught, offended, outraged by some stray remark by a political opponent, or judicial nominee, or radio talk-show host. They demand apology, firing, crucifixion. The target resists for a few days, then caves in and steps down or apologizes. Occasionally they survive, as Limbaugh probably will, but wounded and more careful from now on.

[...]

Nevertheless, the self-righteous parade out the door by Limbaugh’s advertisers is hard to stomach. Had they never listened to Rush before, in all the years they had been paying for commercials on his show? His sliming of a barely known law student may be a new low -- even after what he’s said about Nancy Pelosi and Michelle Obama -- but it’s not a huge gap. “We hope that our action,” said David Friend, the chief executive of a company called Carbonite, “will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse,” as the company withdrew its ads. Ultimately! Where was this hope for “civilized discourse” a week ago? </div></div>

Qtec
03-07-2012, 10:12 PM
Although I get his point, I don't agree. I think he is being a little naive when he says,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do we want conservatives organizing boycotts of advertisers on MSNBC, or either side boycotting companies that do business with other companies who advertise on Limbaugh’s show, or Rachel Maddow’s? </div></div>

Whether he wants it or not, its a fact.
JC Penny, the Million Moms and Ellen DeGeneres?
Planned Parenthood, The Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation and Karen Handel?..just to name 2 recent examples.

JC Penny stood by their hiring of Ellen and got a lot of credit for it. 1,000s pledged their support.
That boycott failed. The bigots lost.

When Karen Handel wormed her way into The Susan G. Komen foundation and cut off funding for PP, there was an uproar. In this case, 1,000s of long time contributors said they would never give another $ to them if this decision wasn't reversed. It was. The small minded lost.

Like the guy says,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you’re on the side of truth, you have a natural advantage. </div></div>

The 'boycott' is people power.

Its democracy in action.

Q

Qtec
03-07-2012, 10:13 PM
How about the constant Fox onslaught against Media Matters?

Q

Qtec
03-07-2012, 10:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Rachael Ray ad pulled <span style='font-size: 14pt'>as<u> pundit</u> sees terror link
Malkin claimed scarf similar to those worn by murderous Islamic extremists</span> </div></div>

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo_StoryLevel/080528/080528-ad-rachael-hmed-12p.grid-6x2.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Critics, including conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, complained that the scarf wrapped around her looked like a kaffiyeh, the traditional Arab headdress. Critics who fueled online complaints about the ad in blogs say such scarves have come to symbolize Muslim extremism and terrorism. </div></div>

Q

Soflasnapper
03-08-2012, 09:16 AM
Sure, there have been attempts and successes at boycotting companies to pressure them to not advertise here or there, or on certain shows, from the right as well as from the left.

I have not heard about an attempted general boycott of MSNBC for its liberal lineup, except for the GOP's general disinterest in appearing on those shows.

My view is that whipping up boycott frenzies simply unleashes the mob- and herd-like character of humans, and just as occurs at soccer matches every year, people are gonna get hurt when over-excited and under-informed persons are urged into action and people, often innocent bystanders, are trampled.

I'm sure you see the point when it's a Fox-driven boycott attempt based on a false smear. I guess you don't see it, generally, or for your side when it does it.

Like I mentioned, when these things are raging, everybody is supposed to offer ritual words of intense condemnation, which in the instant case of Rush, are beyond hypocritical. If they really felt that way, they would not have been on his airtime in the first place. It's kabuki theater, phony, and just because this time it's directed at such a previously unassailable pig of a man and it might work, ala Glenn Beck, doesn't improve its character, on an ends justifies the means theory.