GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

A quote “too good to check,” or, the prejudices of left-wing pundits

by

The most telling thing about the media hullabaloo over statements left-wing bloggers and pundits claimed were made by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh was how quickly “journalists” at CNN and MSNBC were to report them to their wide, but dwindling, audiences:

Funny how both of these networks found a quote that happened to be useful in bludgeoning a prominent conservative too good to check. I wonder when was the last time they got the same fact wrong when reporting a political story.

Emphasis added.  A statement “too good to check,” kind of reminds me of defense of shoddy reporting, “fake, but accurate.”

MSNBC’s David Shuster refused to apologize for claiming the conservative talker said something which he denied saying and which the network was “unable to verify“.

In their rush to report Rush’s racism, Shuster et al. ended up revealing their own real prejudices.  A prejudice, let me remind you, is

2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.

These folks have a preconceived notion about conservatives in general and conservative talk show hosts in particular.  They think they’re racists!  They rush to report the quotes attributed to Limbaugh before (and without) having “sufficient knowledge” of the facts.  They base their hostility against Rush on his supposed characteristics.  There is no evidence from any of his public statements (delivered 3 hours a day, five days a week for twenty-odd years now) and writings that he supports slavery or defends the man who murdered Martin Luther King, Jr.

As Rush himself said:

I never said I supported slavery and I never praised James Earl Ray. How sick would that be? Just as sick as those who would use such outrageous slanders against me or anyone else who never even thought such things.

And how sick that people would use such spurious statements to smear Rush Limbaugh.  This is not to say one should never criticize the man, but criticize the words he actually spoke, in the context that he said them.  These pundits may have tried to smear Rush, but, in the end, they only tarnished their own reputations and revealed their own prejudices.  They have as narrow an opinion of conservatives as they allege Rush has of racial minorities.

Comments

  1. I imagine David Shuster has spoken words that “advice of counsel” has helped him construct. Rush let 20 million listeners know just what kind of a slime David Shuster is by detailing his public record as a hit and run driver.

    Perhaps “advice of counsel” informed David Shuster that he has no case going after Rush, but that Rush is better situated to thumb crush Shuster. Rush also has 20 million listeners dollars to educate David Shuster about the old mid-Eastern maxim that when you kick the king you have to kill the king.

    Penance and apology will follow in the settlement phase.

  2. The Left seeks to demonize Rush as thoroughly as they did Newt and Sarah.

    But if they never apologize–publicly–or if they merely claim they’ve been “unable to verify” statements which Rush, even if he didn’t MAKE them, certainly THOUGHT (you KNOW how he IS!), then those who’ve been convinced that Rush is unworthy will never realize how thoroughly dishonest The Left is, and how the public has been brainwashed.

    I soooo want Rush to sue the pants off every last one of them, in a battle fought publicly. W was NOT a fighter; our Republican legislators are NOT fighters; I hope Rush IS a fighter.

  4. David Shuster is by detailing his public record as a hit and run driver.

    That was Rick Sanchez.

    fake, but accurate

    I was thinking the same thing yesterday. And what does it say about the State run media when Rush supposedly said this stuff 11 years ago and nobody, including the Clinton “War Room”, knew about it?

  5. Besides, when folks for the party of slavery and segregation start calling people “racist”, we should all be suspicious.

    Helitrope, sorry to double-team ya. I guess Mike and I started writing about the same time.

  8. Oops!

    Sanchez, Shuster, Smith, Seagull, Shifflett they all look the same to me. I remember when I could remember stuff. I think. No I don’t. Anyway, if Shuster were Sanchez, I would still be confused.

  10. Hi all. I suspect that before Rush wrote the WSJ article that Sharpton is threatening to sue about (comment 7) he reviewed all the info with his lawyers and is confident that he can defend himself. Boy, I’m looking forward to Rush on Monday when he calls that old race-baiters bluff. it really is time to fight back against these types of lowlife’s.
    Have a great weekend all.

  11. According to a statement put out by Sharpton’s media consultant, a study New York Governor Mario Cuomo commissioned showed Sharpton was not involved in the Crown Heights incident until after the rioting concluded.

    Nice office you got here, Mario. ‘twould be a shame if your study found that I had anything to do with this. You might find your office full of angry blacks carrying a rail for you.

  13. I blogged on this yesterday. Rush has responded to his critics, who used fabricated quotes to justify denying him ownership stake of the St. Louis Rams. First here is the relevant quote that appeared in the Washington Post written by Sportscaster Michael Wilbon:

    I’ve met Limbaugh. I communicated with him last week on the issue of his being a part-owner of a franchise. One-on-one, he comes across as approachable and open to pretty much any discussion. But his radio persona is another thing. I don’t listen to his show because his comments about people of color anger and offend me, and I’m not easily offended. I’m not going to try and give specific examples of things he has said over the years; I screwed up already doing that, repeating a quote attributed to Limbaugh (about slavery) that he has told me he simply did not say and does not reflect his feelings. I take him at his word.

    Reading the whole article, Wilbon’s criticism echo’s one of the main points I wrote the other day, that Rush makes a living off saying outlandish things that rub people the wrong way. He relishes in being controversial. The two quotes are not much of a factor in the grand scheme of things. It’s the entire body of work that stands out. That said, here is Rush’s response featured in the Wall Street Journal:

    Numerous sportswriters, CNN, MSNBC, among others, falsely attributed to me statements I had never made. Their sources, as best I can tell, were Wikipedia and each other. But the Wikipedia post was based on a fabrication printed in a book that also lacked any citation to an actual source.

    I never said I supported slavery and I never praised James Earl Ray. How sick would that be? Just as sick as those who would use such outrageous slanders against me or anyone else who never even thought such things. Mr. Wilbon refuses to take responsibility for his poison pen, writing instead that he will take my word that I did not make these statements; others, like Rick Sanchez of CNN, essentially used the same sleight-of-hand.

    You know, this criticism only works if the same can’t be placed at you own feet. Anyone remember this gem from October of 2006?

    “Now people are telling me they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial,” Limbaugh said, according to a transcript on his Web site. “All right then, I stand corrected. . . . So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act.”

    Pot…. Kettle…. Wait, can I even uses that euphemism, since it has the word black in it.

  14. sf, next you’ll be cracking The Case of the Disappearing Floor, or some such.

    You’ve found something wrong with Limbaugh – something arguable, yet too small and unimportant to be worth arguing. Way to change the subject from Dan’s post.

  15. sf, next you’ll be cracking The Case of the Disappearing Floor, or some such.

    As a matter of fact Watson……

    Hey, all I’m sayin’ is that, if you’re going to complain about half-hearted apologies, then you shouldn’t make them yourself.

  16. And need I remind everyone, Rush was NOT denied entry into the “ownership club” based on those two quotes, but on a long history of being an agent provocateur.

    I’m getting really sick of Republicans playing the victim card. Get over it and lets see some viable candidates who will actually cut spending.

  17. And need I remind everyone, Rush was NOT denied entry into the “ownership club” based on those two quotes, but on a long history of being an agent provocateur.

    That’s bullshit plain and simple. He was denied entry by the Justice Bros. and an Obama bitch. Besides, look at the other owners partial or otherwise. Look at most of the players. The NFL is a repository for the dregs of society surpassed only by the UN.