There have been several studies (e.g. this one) over the last few years that have shown that Fox News viewers are not just more misinformed than consumers of other news outlets; they are more misinformed than people who watch no news programming at all. In other words, if you watch Fox News, you are going to be misled and you will form opinions based on lies. This fact alone should lead civic-minded citizens to worry about the negative impact of right-wing news organizations, including Clear Channel’s Premiere Radio Networks. It’s one thing, after all, to disseminate news with a political perspective. It’s quite another to simply replace news with completely nonfactual information and perspectives. The former is normal political debate; the latter is simple disinformation. It’s this making-people-stupid element of the Mighty Right-Wing Wurlitzer that makes it an appropriate target for more than just Democrats, but concerned and responsible citizens of all stripes.
Having said that, the battle with Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the stable of right-wing media/entertainment figures is part of a larger legitimate ideological war. To understand it, you must first understand that the right-wing has been waging an unforgiving and unrelenting war on the rest of us.
You might consider the attacks on ACORN to have been racist. And there was a major racist component. But the reason ACORN was attacked was not primarily because they registered a lot of African-Americans to vote. It was because African-Americans vote almost uniformly against Republicans.
Likewise, the recent attacks on public-service unions in states like Wisconsin and Ohio are not aimed at teachers, police officers, firefighters, and bureaucrats because of who they are, but because of whom they tend to support politically.
This is also true for the attacks on private sector trade unions in places like Indiana. You can say the same about the coordinated efforts to marginalize MoveOn.org and Media Matters for America. The right is attacking any and all organizations that work against them politically. This even informs their work against Planned Parenthood.
For the most part, the Democrats do not reciprocate these tactics. There is no sustained and coordinated effort to delegitimize The Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation or megachurch registration drives or the Weekly Standard and the National Review. We aren’t going after racial or religious majorities, nor are we attacking the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or the National Rifle Association. We aren’t trying to defund right-wing organizations or use the budget process to eliminate their jobs or benefits.
The fact that the left has seized on Rush Limbaugh’s outrageous behavior recently to go after all right-wing radio outlets is something new. It’s legitimate on its own terms. What Limbaugh did was despicable even by his own low standards. But it’s also an example of the liberals finally waking up and realizing that two can play at this game.
But some in the talk business suggest things are different now.
For one thing, the Limbaugh flap has demonstrated anew how individuals and interest groups, such as the liberal Media Matters for America, can gin up and sustain outrage via social media (in Limbaugh’s case, President Obama’s consoling phone call to Fluke probably helped fan public revulsion, too). The group waged a sustained campaign targeting Glenn Beck’s advertisers that drove many off Beck’s highly rated Fox News program and ultimately ended Beck’s association with the cable network. Similar campaigns drove Don Imus and Dr. Laura Schlessinger from the air after they made inflammatory comments.
For another, some see the radio industry as uniquely vulnerable to sustained pressure. A long period of consolidation has left industry giants such as Clear Channel with a vast portfolio of stations but also deeply in debt, making them extra sensitive to anything that might disrupt their revenue (for the record, Premiere has issued a statement generally supportive of Limbaugh).
And it is working:
The trade publication Radio-info.com reported last week that Premiere has circulated to station managers a list of 98 blue-chip advertisers that had requested their commercials not air during programs “that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial” or are “likely to stir negative sentiments from a very small percentage of the listening public.” The programs include not just Limbaugh’s but those hosted by many of the leading conservative talkers on the air: Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage.
Such edicts indicate that “all of talk radio, or all of conservative talk radio, is being tarred” in the reaction to Limbaugh, said Michael Harrison, the publisher of Talkers magazine, which covers the talk-show business.
Again, this is happening for a legitimate reason. Promulgating hate and misinformation is bad for the country regardless of who is doing it. But it is also tit-for-tat. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. For a long time, the right attacked us and we just wondered what was going on. Now we’ve taken the attitude that if you attack us where it hurts, we’ll attack you where it hurts, too.
It’s instructive that Bill Maher doesn’t see this fight clearly. He thinks it’s partisans against entertainers’ right to be controversial. But he didn’t lose his job with ABC Television for being controversial. He lost it because he said something the right didn’t like.
I was dead wrong in comments here on the effects of attacking Limbaugh, and I’m happy to say so.
Not often you see that phrase on the internet. 🙂
I guess my work here is done 😉
Limbaugh’s attacks certainly must be put and kept in the larger context, otherwise the discussion resembles swatting at flies but turning a blind eye to the carcass rotting in the corner.
It’s too easy to be disgusted by Limbaugh. The infrastructure he helps prop up is still moving parts behind the curtain.
It would perhaps be worth remembering here that President Obama gave legitimate media a perfect opportunity to sever themselves from the political agitprop operation that Fox clearly is and chose instead to lambast the President and call Fox a sister organization. Until the real media, as bad as they can be, are willing to make that distinction, we are in trouble.
It’s about time.
There is a Prisoner’s Dilemma programming contest where each program is matched up with every other program in 200 iterations of the Prisoner’s Dilemma game (“cooperate” or “defect”). The winner is the program with the highest cumulative score. In the first several years of the contest, the winning algorithm was also the simplest, Tit for Tat. It had two rules:
They found that a sufficiently large sub-population of Tit for Tat programs helped each other enough to win, as they always cooperated. But later a new set of programs outscored Tit for Tat — or at least one of that set did. There was one Master and a host of Slaves.
The programs had preset opening moves designed to allow them to recognize each other. Two Slaves cooperated with each other. The Master and the Slaves all defected vs. an “outsider”. Now here’s the winning feature: Slaves, when matched up with the Master, always cooperated while the Master always defected. That is, Slaves sacrificed their own score to benefit the Master. A sufficiently large sub-population of Slaves will pump up the Master’s score above that of the mutually cooperating sub-population of Tit for Tat.
I think that’s a good metaphor for the what’s going on in Fox-and-Limbaugh land.
You immediately start out with a wrong conclusion:
The real fact of the matter is that those who watch no news programming at all are the only ones who are not being “misinformed.”
I started a comment here that grew way beyond the bounds of commenthood.
Read it if you’re interested.
Station WTFU Once Again Tries To Talk Some Sense Here
Later…
AG
It’s not like Republicans are not appealing to racists or to employers who want to suppress collective bargaining.
What it is is Republicans trying desperately not to take the political hit that comes with their bigotry and their anti-union stances.
Because when Republicans overreach, the people they are shafting start turning out for elections.
Only one point, Booman.
The warfare you so rightly name as such has been directed and lead by institutional actors. There has long been a recognition of this on the left and a desire among many partisans to reciprocate, but our institutional leaders have been completely unwilling to do so. I think of conversations I had with Demcratic Party leaders during campaign events for John Kerry in 2004 when the response I got was essentially, “We don’t do that.” There was a long standing belief that we could take the high road, and people would simply see the difference and make the noble choice. Thank goodness this seems to be shifting.
what’s shifting isn’t really the Dem Party becoming willing to take the low road. This is more the left than the party. And it isn’t the low road. The change is that we’re aware that we can take the high road and attack the GOP where it hurts at the same time. And we’re becoming aware of not only the legitimacy but the necessity of doing so.
It’s not only that this isn’t coming from the leadership. I’d also argue that this isn’t tit for tat. Republicans attack institutions like unions and Media Matters because they help Democrats. Limbaugh is not being attacked because he helps Republicans. He’s being attacked because his verbal slimes of a private citizen grossly offended tens of millions of people.
While the ramifications of advertisers fleeing Limbaugh may have an impact on other conservative media, that wasn’t the point of the reaction to Limbaugh. Nor was it to disable even Limbaugh’s role in the Republican Wurlitzer. It was specifically to punish him for the Fluke affair, and, to a much lesser extent, as a reflection of disgust with his many previous assaults on dignity and truth.
In other words, this is not motivated by a desire to counterattack. I’d like to believe that the demonstration of the impact on Limbaugh’s show – and we still don’t know whether there will be one, long term, or whether this is a hiccup for him – will inspire us to flex our collective muscles against other right-wing propagandists, and do so not solely because they’ve crossed some line of poor taste, but because they’re spewing lies and appealing to hate to try to gain power. But so far there’s no evidence this is happening, and plenty of evidence that our media system still rewards hatred and lies handsomely.
Bill Maher’s knee jerk defense of Limbaugh and other right wing commentators was done in his own self interest. These right wing extremist commentators have found that they can say anything that pops into their feeble minds when broadcasting on the air. If any public backlash explodes in the MSM in response to something outrageous they have broadcast; they have learned the simpe trick of saying that I was only joking, implying that they are just entertainers doing stand-up comedy on the radio or TV.
Take a trip with me back to the days that immediately preceded “Stand-Up Comedy”. Mort Saul introduced his own version of the iconoclasm of the time into the coffee houses and clubs. Mort created his own iconoclastic material and he would simply step onto the stage with a newspaper rolled up under his arm and proceed to trash every institution from the Pope to politicians relative to events in the news. Sometimes Mort made news himself simply becaause he decided to go off against some beloved and treasured American icon. Subsequently others began to copy Mort’s style and routine, and thus it became known as “Stand-Up Comedy”.
It is ironic that the very people, the right wing Republicans that Mort often excoriated in his routines, have now discovered that by incorporating a “Stand-Up” style into the delivery portion of their Republican propaganda machine (Clear Channel, Fox and other networks), they can say anything they wish. In the event of wide-spread public condemnation over what they broadcast, these right wing fringe commentators know that they can run to and hide behind the “entertainer” label for protection. Likewise Bill Maher feels that he can call someone a “cocksucker” on his HBO show without any fear of redress (legal or otherwise) simply because it’s all in “fun”, you know it’s just “entertainment”. Sorry Bill, I for one will never buy your way of thinking anymore than I subscribe to Limbaugh’s way of thinking.
For the most part, I don’t find anything controversial or groundbreaking in your observations. I’m interested in this line, though:
I don’t dispute your point here, but I’m curious about your use of the term “legitimate.” Given the very specific context you use it in here, it seems to have some connotations that ordinarily it might not. I was hoping you might elaborate on what you mean.
I mean that attacking right-wing radio advertisers is a legitimate strategy for Democrats as a way of fighting back against attacks on ACORN, unions, voter ID laws, and attacks on groups like MoveOn and Planned Parenthood. This is true even when they haven’t done anything seen as unanimously egregious.
Ah, got it, thanks. I was misreading that to suggest that the right wing was waging a legitimate battle in its attacks on ACORN et al. I see my mistake now. Thank you for the clarification.
This is how you can get involved in the battle against Limbaugh.
http://stoprush.pbworks.com/w/page/51650254/FrontPage
http://stoprush.pbworks.com/w/page/51739754/StopRush%3A%20Action%20Page
http://stoprush.pbworks.com/w/page/51773026/Volunteer%20For%20A%20Task