Home › Blogs › Pete's blog ›

Limbaugh Smackdown: The Relationship of Conservative Journalists to Talk Radio

Submitted by Pete on Tue, 05/12/2009 - 18:34

Connor Friedersdorf on an argument about Limbaugh and Hannity over at NRO's The Corner http://theamericanscene.com/2009/05/12/no-one-on-the-corner-has-swagger-like-rush

Friedersdorf  argues that he cannot understand why conservative journalists who can be sharp in their critiques of politicians or other conservative journalists are often so reticent to attack the Limbaughs and Hannitys.  I suspect that as a journalist himself, Friedersdorf knows part of the answer.  Guys like Limbaugh and Hannity speak to an audience of millions and tens of millions of people who think of themselves as conservatives.  Most conservative opinion journalists are read by thousands to maybe several million.  The Limbaughs and Hannitys can, by citing your article, spread your work to a general audience that does not read the comparatively small circulation political magazines.  Several months ago, Jonah Goldberg noted that sales of his book spiked after appearing on the Beck show. 

This puts conservative journalists in a tough postion.  With the rest of the media fairly hostile to the extended exposition of conservative ideas, the Hannitys Limbaughs and Becks are among the few ways for conservative journalists to get their message out the general public (if only the conservative leaning general public that makes up the audience for those shows).  You can't  really do that if you have alienated the hosts.  This means being very diplomatic in how one handles those hosts.  You don't want to defend error, but if you are too harsh, then a large fraction of conservative leaning America will know you only as that fake conservative who attacks Limbaugh because he wants to be invited to liberal cocktail parties. 

Rich Lowry and the National Review editorial board are actually masters of diagreeing with Limbaugh while not anatagonizing him.  This National Review editorial is an example of masterful journalistic diplomacy http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5OTMwMDRkODYwMzExYzY0NGJjMDY0ZTA3NzU0YmQ=  and here is Rich Lowry on Limbaugh http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmYyOTAwYjQzYTcxY2MyOWQzMTY5MWFhOWQ2OWMwN2E=

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

This made me giggle

Submitted by acinphx on Tue, 05/12/2009 - 19:28.

Every time I hear or read how important it is to tiptoe around Limbaugh's or Hannity's ego, I try to picture the Dems doing the same with Keith Olbermann.  Somehow, I just can't see it.  Why should an entire party and every representative of it be hostage to the whims of an admitted 'entertainer'? 

And I'd never even considered that conservative journalists and intellectuals must also tiptoe through the minefield.  It strikes me as absurd that conservative journalists and political leaders are as likely to be nailed as 'elitists' as any of their Dem or liberal targets. 

FWIW, I would urge conservatives to also consider the tone, rhetoric and credibility of what has to be hundreds of local Rush wanna-bes spawned across the country.  The excesses of the heavy-hitters are at least constrained by their desire to see the million$ keep flowing in.  I think the local wannabes do enormous damage to the conservative message and credibility with their essentially unchecked ability to create impressions of xenophobia, pettiness and irrelevancy.  Seriously, who considers a person who rants about mustard for a week to represent a thoughtful, viable, relevant philosophy?  The uninitiated would wonder why conservatism requires that its adherents accept the proposition that all Mexicans spread disease and are criminals?  Those are two examples of recent 'themes' of one of our local conservative talk radio shows.  Does anyone else hear similar over-the-top lunacy from local hosts?

lunatic pit bull Olbermann is new White House attack dog

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Tue, 05/12/2009 - 22:13.

I try to picture the Dems doing the same with Keith Olbermann.

I've never heard of a single Democrat distancing themselves from that lunaic Olbermann. It was repulsive and disgusting when the Obama White House shared the love for MSNBC and said how great . Olbie and Rachel Mad Cow are extremists and yet the slime they wallow in (ad hominems R US!) suits the liberal elites in DC from Obama on down just fine.

And I'd never even considered that conservative journalists and intellectuals must also tiptoe through the minefield. 

There is no minefield. The Obama admin Alinsky 'call out' requires that to be the 'narrative' but it is a fiction. Here in the real world, Rush is liked by some and not like by some, and Rush hasnt done anything (UNLIKE OBAMA) to stop either side from speaking out.

There is Political Correctness run riot and there are people standing up against it.

Meteor Blades for one.

Submitted by Maleficent on Wed, 05/13/2009 - 12:19.

next question?

I don't watch the guy, but even I can give examples like that.

Rush and talk radio - an asset to our democratic system

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Tue, 05/12/2009 - 22:02.

Friedersdorf  argues that he cannot understand why conservative journalists who can be sharp in their critiques of politicians or other conservative journalists are often so reticent to attack the Limbaughs and Hannitys.

Why should ANYONE on the right bother with attacking Rush or Hannity.... THESE MEN ARE PILLORIED BY THE LIBERAL MSM ON A DAILY BASIS NOW!

The Obama Administration has a Saul Alinsky plan to destroy them and it requires continued pollorying of both men.  Demands to critique these men are invariably liberal deflection attempts. The liberal MSM and Obama kneepad-wearing journalists disgrace their profession and go after them. Joining them is joining in a farce against media people who do much good.

This puts conservative journalists in a tough postion.  With the rest of the media fairly hostile to the extended exposition of conservative ideas, the Hannitys Limbaughs and Becks are among the few ways for conservative journalists to get their message out the general public (if only the conservative leaning general public that makes up the audience for those shows).  You can't  really do that if you have alienated the hosts.

Correct, which is why it would be pointless and wrong.  Rush, Beck, Hannity should be applauded for what they do, and doubly applauded by weathering the storm of dangerous intolerant statements from Obama and his minions about Rush. Hannity was the sole person who was telling the truth about Rev Wright and Obama early on. If not for him, the coverup would have continued. Talk radio gave voice to the GOP grassroots unhappy about immigration amnesty and other issues. The pathetic Pravda-like CNNABCCBSMSNBC Borg tells us so LITTLE of the truth, that these men are needed to keep a balance.

And if you dont agree, just turn the channel. Most people who hate Rush are really saying they hate the audience.

Rush should be celebrated and applauded for some great ideas - like his bipartisan stimulus plan which Obama failed to reach out and take him up on. But mostly, Rush and talk radio should be applauded and celebrated because they are so VITAL to our democratic Republic, more so than some of the dinosaur MSM monopoly city papers that think (wrongly) they are above Rush's level.

LOL---Rush is an asset all right!!!

Submitted by gunthestops on Tue, 05/12/2009 - 22:34.

Rush is an asset to the Democratic party---lol---if you keep thinning the Republican party down to about 10%----you can get those real nutty conservative views out there!!!  Small govenment--small party---small ideas---lol

GOP should really listen to Freedoms Truth

Submitted by skayne on Tue, 05/12/2009 - 22:46.

Very entertaining posts by Freedoms Truth. Democrats need people like Freedoms Truth in the republican party.

They might never have gained a majority otherwise.

Thanks for the ironic validation

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Tue, 05/12/2009 - 23:30.

The Dems want Rush front and center because he is a polled 'polarizing' figure.

The Demos forget that Rush did help in 1994 by being a voice of a different view back then when the media was lockstep in love with CLinton.

Same story now.

The Dems are actually trashing Rush because they are desperate to separate him from the GOP, to insulate from GOP success in 2010.

Fools. Those Dems are fools. The more they trash Rush the more exposure he gets. And people listen. And get a different view, that he wants Americans to succeed and just thinks Obama is taking the country in the wrong direction to get there. ... and maybe some of those new listeners will say "you know, he may be right."

Ignore me. Ignore Rush. Stop beating up on the GOP. All you need to do is create the 4 MILLION JOBS YOU LOST SINCE THE DAY OBAMA WAS ELECTED. I mean if Obama is such a goddamned great president surely he is capable of not losing these jobs for years and years... right?

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/

Let me point out a few things

Submitted by skayne on Tue, 05/12/2009 - 23:52.

All those people listened to Rush, Hannity, and Beck during the election. They were telling you all through the elections what a paper tiger Obama was. They told you he sunk his chances for winning because he didn't choose Hillary. Rush told you "Operation Chaos" was going to sink the dems.

They told you he was a communist facist tyrannical dictator who also was seen as weak by our enemies. That he was the most liberal dem in the senate. They told you there was no way people would vote for such a man.

In the final weeks of the election they told you that the 'liberal media' were using biased polls showing Obama by a wider margin than he really had. The hyped the Investor's Business Daily poll that showed Obama up by only 1-2 points. They told you the undecided voters were going to swoop in and win the election for John McCain.

They were wrong on all counts. You fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Why would people who were so wrong still have influence over you?