"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~ Mark Twain
This story is the stupidest attack on a Conservative I've heard yet.
I don't believe the anonymous author of this article actually listened to the comments Rush made about this story.
Because he got it all wrong.
Listen for yourselves:
Not once did Rush say he believed the story. He did, however, mention the story has no sourcing data.
He did say, "[W]e have to hold out the possibility that this is not accurate".
He also said, "I have had this happen to me recently. I've had quotes attributed to me that were made up. And when it was pointed out to the media that these quotes were made up, they said, 'It doesn't matter. We know Limbaugh thinks it anyway.'"
(Obviously referring to the recent lies spread all over the internet and the broadcast media about certain made up statements falsely attributed to him)
And then, he mocked Dan Rather, by paraphrasing, almost word for word, the statement Dan Rather made when it was revealed he had reported a story based on forged documents, ie, "I don't care that these quotes are made up. I know Obama thinks it".
I don't know what the author of this blatantly leftist attack on Limbaugh was smoking, but I would have paid almost anything for a hit of it back in the 70's.
And, I don't blame the author for not supplying a byline. I'd be embarrassed, too.
One would have to do some amazing mental gymnastics to reach the conclusion Rush bought the story. In fact, it would seem the only person who actually bought it was Michael Leeden, the "obscure blogger" who first reported it, apparently thinking it was true.
In fact, Leeden admitted, according to the article, he thought it was true. "I failed to notice that one of the tags was 'satire,'" he wrote.
Well, I'm sure Mr. Leeden recognizes satire once he becomes aware of it, but the anonymous AP reporter apparently doesn't.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Hate makes people stoopid.
and stupidity makes people hate. I hate stupid people.
hey, there's no buffer here...
Rick. Buffer?
Not to care whether someone is misquoted because one thinks he/she knows what the person thinks is the essence of all that is wrong with MSM today.
Of what possible value is a media organ if we cannot count on it to present the truth?
But then again, how long has this been developing?...for years and years.
comment moderation was off...
Nice try, but if you actually listen to this clip, you'll note that he is only stating some skepticism about the report (not its content) AFTER buying it earlier but being warned by a researcher that there is no sourcing. "In the first hour of this program, I cited a statement from a blog..." "I NOW say that ... we have to hold out the possibility that this is not accurate."
In other words, he definitely bought it until a researcher waved him off.
"I don't believe the anonymous author of this article actually listened to the comments Rush made about this story."
The story is not by an anonymous author. It is an AOL news story referencing an article from NY Daily News by Michael Saul.
I don't believe YOU actually listened to the comments Rush made.
I stopped listening to Rush a long time ago. He's an arrogant, self-serving blowhard. I truly believe he would say the sky is green if he thought it would sell more airtime.
But he's VERY smart. A good example is his slight alteration of Dan Rather's quote about Bush. Trouble is, unless you listen very carefully and regularly, you'll miss the irony and allegories that he use.
I stopped listening to Randie a long time ago. He's an arrogant, self-serving blowhard. I truly believe he would say the sky is brown just for fun.
But he's VERY dumb. A good example is his Rush-bashing.
Jim, I linked to the article. There is no byline. Hence, it's an anonymous author.
Rush did not buy the story. He merely reported what somebody else wrote. If he hadn't asked his people to research it, you might be able to say he bought it, but the mere fact that he had it researched is evidence he wasn't buying it.
But even if he had bought it, even for a second, it only proves nothing is out of the realm of possibility for a Marxist like Obama.
The article is not anonymous. It is sourced and the source is an article written by Michael Saul.
"If he hadn't asked his people to research it..."
There is absolutely no indication in the clip that he "asked his people to research it." He says, QUOTE:
"I got a note from a researcher who's been scouring the internet, and the note says this, 'Rush Limbaugh: mini-warning on these quotes.'" Does this sound like one of his staff? Nope.
In fact he continues to read from the first 10 pages of "Obama's thesis" as if it is real at the same time he's saying there is no source. It's clear he still believes it but is covering his ass because of the lack of sourcing.
"But even if he had bought it, even for a second, it only proves nothing is out of the realm of possibility for a Marxist like Obama."
What utter nonsense! It only "proves" that nothing is out of the fantasy realm of Rushbo.
This story shows the problems with our news cycles. Everyone wants to get the big story first. This would have been a very big story had it been true, so everyone ran with it. I saw it in a few places and was glad to see some people questioning it. The problem with running it before you check it is that it strains your credibility. It's not just Rush, it's every single news source on the planet. They all have little credibility any more because they value being first more than being right and thorough.
Jim: "In other words, he definitely bought it until a researcher waved him off."
False logic and false conclusion.
If it was simply a logic slip, well, that happens. But if you did it deliberately, then there is a real issue with honesty on your part.
Which was it? A logic slip or dishonesty?
Don't know if you're talking about me or Rush. What logic slip?
Prior to the clip here, Rush talked about the "thesis" as if it were real. In this clip he even alludes to that. Only after he's tipped off does he begin to back track.
The only dishonesty here is the assertion by ANYONE that Rush didn't believe the story prior to being tipped off.
You mean like when Dan Rather believed the phony documents on Bush's reserve service? Like that? Difference is to this day, Rather has not apologized. He claims that the documents may have been phony, but the story was true.
Every time liberals get on their high horse, they get bucked off.
Liberalism makes people stupid.
LR, as far as Dan Rather not apologizing, there was no need. He knew that there was plenty of OTHER evidence that basically backed up the story. Bush had to quit flying after refusing to take a required physical. Bush spent the last months of his required active service essentially AWOL. Nobody, as in NOBODY, has ever refuted the essential facts of the story.
Post a Comment