Rush Limbaugh Defends His Work By Claiming It Is Satire As Well

[Vinnie From Indy]

While I have no problem with the New Yorker running this cover, I do not believe that simply claiming something is "satire" immunizes one from severe criticism as some of you on DU seem to believe.

I guess after the dust-up over this cover, every racist, sexist and homophobic image created anywhere by anyone will be defended as being merely satire and therefore acceptable.

In the end, it seems for some of you that ANY cover on the New Yorker, regardless of the subject, is OK as long as they offer that is merely "satire". They have every right publish anything that they choose. I have the right to call them idiots and call their cover about Obama the worst attempt at satire that I have ever seen.

[Cleita]

1. I hope he does. As a matter of fact, I wish we passed a law stating that

Rush/Sean/Billo have to put such a disclaimer in the beginning and end of each show stating that they are doing satire, fiction or whatever fits, because they aren't doing news or facts. That would work for me.

[nels25]

10. I suppose it would be utterly useless to point to you the

concept of free speech.

This is the kind of thing that verifies the ideas that conservatives promote of liberals/progressives in fact being in favor of censorship of any idea save our own.

We should know better.

[Cleita]

11. Probably not your version of free speech.

What I'm saying is that unfounded rhetoric passing as truth and facts should be qualified by the presenter as to whether it's fact or fiction. Then speak away freely, anything you want to say, just qualify whether it's fact or fiction.

[nels25]

13. Perhaps but that might mean the following:

I would bet a large amount of currency that conservatives do not believe what Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann (you get the idea) say would they also have to issue a disclaimer when ever they came on the air or published something.

Some believe one way, some the other, it is one of the reasons this nation is so danged divided (and boy am I sick of that).

Who gets to decide what is right from what is wrong, and how far are they allowed to take it.

It is my understanding that in some Scandinavian nations, religious sermons have to be scrutinized (not completely sure on that one, though I think I remember reading something to that effect).
Also consider the Canadian Human rights commission who hold what are for all practical purposes kangaroo courts with very little to no ability to defend yourself as we understand the concept in the United States. If you utter or write something some one finds offensive than they can make a secret complaint and it is off to wood shed with you, for your reference check out Mark Steyns recent columns concerning this or simply google it. To me it is frightening, if that is your idea of how free speech should be conducted, then I shudder.

I can not remember who made the following quote but it goes some thing like this "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend that right to my death for you to say it."

That is free speech, warts and all!!

[Cleita]

16. Isn't what you are supposed to do when you are a real journalist is to

source your reports, double check and triple check before you put it into print or on the air? That's just journalism 101. With the exception of Ed Schultz, who is sloppy in his research, everyone else on your list does back up what they say and if they can't back it up they say so but also explain why they think such and such is true, however, still stating that more information is needed. Thom Hartmann is particularly meticulous in this in separating hard facts and information from speculation. Rush Limbaugh on the other hand just pulls outrageous statements out of his ass with nothing to back up what he says and with no apologies as do his clones Hannity and O'Reilly. He even has said that what he does is entertainment, which I think, means he is saying that what he says is bull shit. So I think he needs to say this every day and if it isn't bull shit let him back up what he deems to be the facts with sources proving it. I don't think it's that hard to do.

[Vinnie From Indy]

18. I suppose YOU flunked reading and comprehension as a child.

Jeezus H. Christ, where in my post do you find even a whiff of "censorship"? Can you read? I wrote in my opening sentence,

"While I have no problem with the New Yorker running this cover, I do not believe that simply claiming something is "satire" immunizes one from severe criticism as some of you on DU seem to believe."

If I were you I would be embarrassed by your response. I would bet that 98% of the people that read my initial post understood that it was not about censorship.

[Judi Lynn]

2. Mocking, insulting, slandering people, as the Blob does, is NOT satire, is it?

Only in his dreams.

He's childish, graceless, ignorant, spiteful, a mega racist. Not characteristics you look for in a good satirist.

[0rganism]

3. What if National Review used the same cartoon on their cover?

It's interesting to ponder the role of context in all this.

Because the New Yorker is supposed to be a liberal magazine with a highbrow sophisticate audience, we're supposed to give them a pass -- somehow, the "satire" is obvious just because the New Yorker presents it. All those racial and ethnic stereotypes somehow become "over the top parody", and the flag-burning Osama-fan image spontaneously transforms into a hilarious dust-up of right-wing lies.

Would the cartoon have a different meaning on the cover of National Review?

Either way, the cartoon is still going onto the newsstands, to become a semi-permanent part of the dialog.

[TahitiNut]

27. Notice ...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/535

... and the subthread it generated.

[0rganism]

28. well said there, TN, and some interesting responses

I especially liked one responder's comparison to a Rorschach test, on a national scale.

On a certain level, knowing the context, I find myself admiring the editorial staff and cover cartoonist for pulling off a clever artistic stunt, but it's risky stuff for sure and comes with a very high pricetag.

[DrDan]

4. and those that "get it" have the right to call you on your

inability to accept free speech for what it is and for your propensity toward censorship.

[TahitiNut]

26. "censorship"???

Please provide a link to ANY post on DU that advocates a government prohibition of that cover cartoon.

Thanks in advance. :hi:


:eyes:

[DrDan]

29. who said anything about a "government prohibition" as related to censorship

Please provide a link where that was ever suggested or mentioned regarding this topic?

Thanks in advance. :shrug:

[TahitiNut]

30. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

"Free speech" is a right ... INCLUDING criticism of that of others. "Free speech" as cited in the Bill of Rights is a prohibition of government infringement or abrogation of the exercise of such rights. "Censorship" in relation to "free speech" then is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a governemntal authority ... which would be the ONLY authority realistically having the power (but not the Constitutional legitimacy) to actually achieve such suppression.

It is hackneyed and deranged to yell "censorship" whenever another individual criticizes someone's speech. BOTH are an exercise of civil liberties and the ridiculous posture that any opposition is "censorship" is total nonsense.

[DrDan]

31. the criticism of that cover here is simply a desire for some

self-censorship on the part of the New Yorker because some here "are offended".

hackneyed, detanged, ridiculous - whatever other insult you wish to hurl - does not deny the obvious feeling of entitlement being expressed.

[DangerDave921]

32. Can't find specific post

But I have seen more than one that advocates pulling the license from Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al. as being hate speech and/or outright lies on the public airwaves.

[wurzel]

5. His work is not satire. Humor is an essential ingredient of satire.

[lpbk2713]

6. Yeah, like his "Operation Chaos" where he wanted to disrupt the whole election process ...

... he was just kidding, right? Like hell he was. That lying, pusbag, RW Radio Hatemonger Propagandist criminal BushCo Regime enabler.

[crikkett]

7. It's as if it's an image of Mohammed. Outrage is unwarranted as R's shake in boots.

I used to work on a humor magazine. I see the humor in this cover and I'm laughing out loud at how frightened the opposition is. Which is exactly what the artist was doing, laughing at stupid fears.

On edit,
You know, perhaps the real problem is that liberals don't recognize this kind of humor. The cover I think really speaks to disaffected Republicans who will cross the line to vote Obama in the fall. It's typical conservative-branded humor, they like to laugh off the worst-case scenario.

I know this because I used to be one and I used to do a good job of making them laugh.

Now to don my flame-retardant...
:hide:

[seaglass]

8. That would mean his show as satire of rw opinion and he would lose

his audience. This is about one of the dumbest statements I've seen on the topic yet.

[DangerDave921]

9. comedy is in the eye of the beholder

It's impossible to legislate or put disclaimers on comedy. And one cannot define humor. Or satire.

But if the New Yorker was NOT satire, then what was it? Was it trying to show the truth about Obama? That can't be because it is so factually incorrect. So what is left? It has to be humor/satire. I mean, what other choices are there?

You might think it's bad comedy, but that doesn't mean it's not comedy. Heck, I see a lot of comedy on TV I think is rubbish. But I still recognize that it's comedy.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

12. Today I heard him say something that almost caused me to overturn in a ditch

The last sentence of his show - and this is the only sentence I heard, so I can't say what came before.

"Who gets upset at cartoons? Radical Muslims."

[cboy4]

14. He's a total comedian ... there's no question about it.

So I would say more shtick than satire.

[DangerDave921]

21. Correct

He is an entertainer and a businessman really. He has a show with a lot of listeners, that allows him to charge high rates for ads, and he hawks merchandize. It's a classic american success story.

The guy is not news, he's infotainment.

[exothermic]

15. Limbaugh has made that claim? When/where?...I've never heard that.

...

[NashVegas]

17. Rush Pulls His Stunts on PUBLICLY OWNED AIRWAVES

Where the NYer is a privately owned entity.

[DangerDave921]

20. Public?

How does the public own the airwaves?

Can I just walk into Rush's station and get on the air?

[LanternWaste]

24. I think that the phrase "public owns the airwaves..." is shorthand

I think that the phrase "public owns the airwaves..." is shorthand for a broadcast license issued by the government, which then allows the radio/TV station the privilege to use a specific portion of the frequencies to broadcast.

The frequency licenses are issued (regulated) by the government (public); hence, "the public owns the airwaves..."

(I wish you could walk into Rush's station and get on the air-- I'd pay five bucks to listen to that episode...)


See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_license

[DangerDave921]

25. LOL

That explains it better. Thanks.

[guitar man]

19. oh, it's "satire" is it?

Good, then means it's not to be taken seriously, right?

[Judi Lynn]

22. Rush is a slobbering, sweaty, dank, clammy, oddly steaming, moist, smelly, wildly ugly fat fool.

He has exactly zero muscle tone, tries to strike poses with his pathetic cigars, as if putting a cigar next to a human wreckage with boils in its nether places gives it a jaunty appearance. How deluded, how twisted, how silly can a stupid, sputtering, breathless blob of flesh be?

If you read this as a direct insult, you clearly aren't bright enough to recognize satire when you see it.

Isn't this the way it's done? I believe it is, if you're a Republican wit, like their hate show hosts.

[Dukkha]

23. satire against junkie pedophiles?

I don't think even Colbert would take the role to that extreme

[yellowcanine]

33. Satire? Well we can agree that Rush is a joke, anyway. Is that close enough"