BlogHer - Rush Limbaugh: Should - or can - he be fired? - Comments

"2. I take freedom of speech

Mamalogues — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:17:57 -0500

"2. I take freedom of speech very seriously. It must extend to all for it to have any true meaning. Parody, comedic expression is protected speech."

Best. Sentence. Ever.

I parody rednecks with my dregged-up Ozark twang. Should speech become policed, I would have to stop cracking jokes about skinning stuff in my yard and wife-swapping. Yee-haw.

Dana
Mamalogues.com
In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Pop Mama
Since Eve

My memory of Rush's program

Gena Haskett — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 02:32:19 -0500

1. I was working as a temp in a law office. It was in the late 80s in upscale, corporate and professional. The department radio was on every day set to Rush's program.

I had heard of his program but now I was involuntarily exposed to it. It was insulting. It was humiliating in the amount of misinformation that spewed forth. And the humor was pointed to minorities, women and all others on the other side of the righteous line. Once I was free from that position I have never voluntarily listen to that program.

I had to wonder what the appeal was to so called affluent, educated & primarily Caucasian employees. It was so bad I'd make sure I saved up filing so I could go into another room during the program.

2. I take freedom of speech very seriously. It must extend to all for it to have any true meaning. Parody, comedic expression is protected speech.

Obama is a U.S. public figure and a announced candidate for public office removes or diminishes some of an individual's protections.

Strictly on those two reasons Rush won't get the boot. Hell, after what he said about Michael J. Fox which was out and out cruelty way beyond the pale I thought he would have been shown the door.

He is supported by a large base of people who revel in what he has to say and the way he says it. He provides a haven for those that think his way. He is their voice.

More is the pity.

Do I think he should be removed? Hell yeah but in this specific instance (parody+comedy+political candidates/public figures) he should not be fired for this idiocy. Trust me, he has said far worse. Remember his "FemNazi" crusades?

The coarseness and the acceptance of mean spirit humor must be dealt with from the society level on both sides of the fence. The consumers of his product must act to repudiate him. His advertisers and sponsors. The Republicans candidates who appear on his program would need to make a choice.

Actually hasn't that really been an unspoken aspect of the Imus story. Both sides are saying "Enough, we need to restore a civil tongue."

What if this is a societal request for civility?
Gena - Out On The Stoop

Keep dreaming...

Idol Hanz — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:00:50 -0500

Keep dreaming...just keep obsessing about race and rights. Blame the other race for everything and use the "da man is keepin' me down" argument to excuse and exonerate! Real progress will be made!

I like what a black man told me one time decades ago: "you've got to get the animosity out of your heart!".

I think that saying "you are a racist" is a 2 way street. Calling to fire the white talk show hosts is hypocritical in the absence of calling for the same for even bigger stinkier sewer mouths elsewhere....

Kudos!

lainad — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 18:25:35 -0500

To Nordette, Maria and Elisa!

I just want to riff on what Elisa posed: Is hateful or offensive speech across our airwaves a firing offense or not? My concern is that common sense civility between people is rapidly eroding. Sure shock jocks have been around, people are obviously loving it (I remember when a friend of mine confessed that she was a fan of Howard Stern and me being appalled), but it seems that common sense and respect is becoming a thing of the past. After what happened to Imus, I thought - even though I was proven wrong by radio hosts who espoused racist rants against the Asian community after the Virginia Tech shootings - that maybe radio hosts would think before they spoke. Obviously I am an idealist.

Also, I wanted to mention that the writer of the LA Times piece was African-American, so yes, Limbaugh, can use, however somehow glib, the excuse that his usage of Magic Negro was, "well a black guy said it first, so...." And as Nordette discussed, it's not the usage of Negro that I feel is racist, even though the usage by Limbaugh and Co. implies that the what many African-Americans choose to refer to themselves as (besides "human beings" and "Americans")is a throwback to slavery and pre Civil-Rights days, ignoring the progress and assertiveness of African-Americans since that time in defining who they are and what they prefer to be called. While this is not a 'double standard,' there is a difference in how a word is conveyed,depending on who says it. Is it unfair? Perhaps, but it is what it is.

Censorship tightrope

Nordette — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 13:55:23 -0500

Maya Angelou said rappers use censorship. They don't call Mrs. Bush a "ho" because they know there would be consequences. She's right. The consequences would be no major record company would touch them, and probably the FBI would watch them, and the IRS would hound them secretly, but they could still produce records on their own dime if they could find a dime. And they'd still be free to call Mrs. Bush a horrible name because Mrs. Bush is a public figure. They might even get certain groups of people to call it satire if they found a way to make what they said humorous. That would be horrible, but it would be a protected form of speech.

If they wanted to play it even safer, they'd leave Mrs. Bush alone and call Hillary a "ho." She's actually running for office. This is the sorry state of human decency in America where we push the envelope and insult people without a care about how it makes that person feel or how much we rip up the fabric of our society.

Parody and satire: It's always funny until it's about your mama

The problem with jokes, especially parody and satire, is it's usually funny unless you're the butt of the joke or your group or family's the butt of the joke. Its protection in America goes back to king's courts and jesters. Usually only the jester could get away with ridiculing the king and so the jester could send political messages, let the king know he was wrong, via humor. Thus political humor is a sacred cow because during periods of history when freedom of speech was not very free, humor may have been the only way the people could speak to seats of power.

And here we are today in America insulting almost everyone because America doesn't have one king. It has many kings and queens too. The courts have declared certain people, public figures, to be the kings and queens of our culture, those with power and influence.

I don't even have to see or hear this Limbaugh video to know it's satire and parody and therefore a protected form of speech. This situation is not the same as the Imus situation. The players involved are all very much public figures, kings, whose decisions and positions make them potential targets of ridicule.

Running for office, even if you've done nothing worthy of ridicule, makes you a target of ridicule. Obama's running for office and Sharpton's both run for office and is a public figure regardless. These men definitely fall into the category of kings and wannabe kings.

Racism in humor

The word "negro" is not racist. Black people have issues with the word "negro" because white people have used it with such negative intonation over the years that it sounds vulgar. However, racism has done such a number on the heads of African Americans that some of us don't even want to be associated with the color black. We got rid of the word "colored" because white people of the past used it also with an insulting tone. Eventually we'll discover you can't let others define you.

Stereotyping is usually offensive but humor often has elements of stereotyping because we can find humor in broad generalizations. Broad generalizations contain elements of truth. If someone or a group doesn't like you or hates you, then they're more likely to see the negative and so for them, the negative stereotype strikes the truth chord and they laugh. Limbaugh's ego's as big as Jupiter. It's easy for him to find fault with other people and so his humor's usually mean.

I don't think we can expect to get rid of racism in humor. We can through disapproval make it less prevalent and less marketable, but I don't think it's going to go away because defining racism can be subjective. Sometimes what's racist gets into areas so pale in gray that even people of the same racial group don't agree about what's offensive to the group.

Just so no one could criticize me not having seen the "Magic Negro" video, I took a break and looked at part of it. It's offensive, juvenile humor. Not funny to me, but I'm sure it's funny to people who loathe Al Sharpton and accept stereotypes of black people like Snoop Dogg is the average black male.

Obama vs. Rutgers Women and could Limbaugh be fired?

No, we're not all created equal when it comes to drawing sympathy from the American public. Sure, people could boycott Limbaugh's sponsors but it probably wouldn't work. As likable as Obama is, he does not stir up the kinds of feelings the Rutgers womens' basketball team did in America. He is, after all, a politician, and Limbaugh's sponsors know this.

I doubt you could get phone banks to light up with protest about Limbaugh insulting Obama and Sharpton the way they lit up for the the Rutgers women's basketball team. People would not see it as insulting all black men. They'd see it as insulting Obama and Sharpton who they believe can take care of themselves.

A significant number of people could clearly see that the Rutgers young women didn't deserve to be randomly slandered (To call someone a whore is to say something about that person's character and is therefore defamation, slander). They're just young college students playing basketball, and the only reason Imus insulted them the way he did is because they happen to be black women. To borrow the Maya Angelou analogy again, Imus wasn't stupid. He wouldn't have called Mrs. Bush a "ho" and claim he was being funny? He chose young black women because he thought no one would care or defend them because to him women in general and young black women in particular are whores.

In the case of Sharpton and Obama, the waters get muddier. It's politics, deeds, and ideologies. With Limbaugh and his ilk's brand of racism thrown in, it's ethnic and socioeconomic war.

Really, what is Limbaugh?

We all know Limbaugh's a Klansman-sympathizer with college training in a suit. The people who love him know that in their hearts, but pretend he's not because he comes from the midwest and doesn't talk like a white, southern, tobacco-spittin', good-old boy with a Confederate flag tattooed on his chest and the tip of a KKK hood hanging out his back pocket. The people who enjoy his way of thinking don't want to give up that part of America, the part that believes white people are superior and other peoples' cultures are a threat, because they fear if they give up these dear beliefs they and their children will lose the very privileges they claim they don't have but swear the minorities are stealing. Wait, how can I steal from you something you claim you didn't have in the first place, special privilege?

All this lying and pretending: Lying in history books, lying over the airwaves, lying in Washington, claiming you've never been privileged, pretending an insult's not an insult, pretending there's no racism. Maybe that's the reason we'll never overcome or why we won't overcome in my lifetime.

I know Limbaugh would protest and say he's nothing like the Klan, but we could pull his tapes and show otherwise. I know people who find no fault with Limbaugh would say this is "pulling the race card." Really? They wouldn't know the race card if they saw it. Every complaint from an African American's mouth looks like the race card to them because they think any mention of racism is unfair to them because they perpetuate the lie that racism no longer exist. Hmm, interesting. How can there be a race card if there is no racism? (Oh, wait, I forgot. There is racism. There's reverse racism. Secretly all the minorities are in charge.)

People who laugh at this kind of humor can't see themselves. Maybe they don't want to know what motivates the laughter. Maybe it doesn't matter, but if it doesn't matter, then why do we lie and say we want all people to live in peace and walk with dignity?

Ted Kennedy said what? Oh, a migraine's coming on

As for who first uses a term, Limbaugh's crowd loves to do that and they usually take the term out of context or ignore the education level, state of mind, historical reference or whatever's relevant to justify doing something nasty they wanted to do all along. And the people who love them accept it as though they all fell of the turnip truck this morning. What they should be asking themselves is what's going on with them that they keep ending up in situations where they need to defend using a term; why do they use "racial humor" and racial insults so often? Limbaugh's such an idiot with that stuff and with finding excuses for his actions such as who said a certain thing first. It's like when people think they've proven beliefs about racial inequality are acceptable because they can show Abraham Lincoln didn't believe black people were equal to white people. Oooooooh. I'm really devastated now!

Or this thing black Republicans are doing now with Martin Luther King, Jr., was a Republican like that proves he was politically conservative. *I'm blowing my breath through teeth* Folks just snatch facts out of the ethers like we live outside historical timelines. Humans are gonna confuse themselves into oblivion.

lainad, why did you have to bring up Rush Limbaugh today? I haven't commented on Limbaugh in years. Now I'll be muttering for an hour.

"Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

"Fired"

Maria Niles — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:51:53 -0500

The voters of New York could "fire" Hillary if they had so chosen - they re-elected her. Jesse Jackson runs his own organization so he would have to "fire" himself. Their "employment" has nothing to do with what Rush Limbaugh does or says and their actions don't answer the questions here.

lainad's questions were 1. Should he be fired? and 2. Could he be fired? Clearly your answer to number 1 is "no" but not because you think Rush should be responsible for his own behavior but because you think others in this world are worse and they should be fired first. And it seems as if your answer to number 2 is also no. But Limbaugh's employers could certainly decide to fire him but are unlikely to do so because his brand of entertainment makes money. The American public could decide to put pressure on both the FCC and the advertisers who support Limbaugh's shows. But as long as there are enough people who think as you do, those of us who would rather not turn over the public airwaves to such ugliness will not prevail.

When is hillary going to be "fired"?

Idol Hanz — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:39:32 -0500

Youre right---so when is Hillary Clinton going to be "fired" for her "hate speech" about Mahatmas Ghandi the gas station owner? When is Jesse Jackson going to be "fired" for his "Hymie-town" remarks.

Why the double standards?

Ah, the straw man and obfuscation

Elisa Camahort — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:36:14 -0500

The minute anyone actually says that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Don Imus and the like are responsible for the ills of the world, and not simply responsible for their own hateful, offensive speech is the minute any of the above rant becomes relevant. until thenit's a distraction and avoids the question: is hateful or offensive speech across our airwaves a firing offense or not?

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer and Worker Bees
elisa@blogher.org/elisa@workerbees.biz

Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity are to blame!

Idol Hanz — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:27:23 -0500

Yes, fire and silence Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity and Michael Savage. It's obvious that they are responsible for the plight of black America!

Once Rush Limbuagh is gone, black children's school test scores will skyrocket. Since white talk radio is to blame, more black men will enter college now instead of going to prison.

Once Rush Limbaugh is gone, gang activity and drive-by shootings will stop. Black children will be able to play on any street corner and their parents will not be so fearful.

Once Rush Limbaugh is gone, black home ownership will rise and foreclosures will stop. After all, Mr. Limbaugh is to blame for what plagues black America.

If only Rush Limbaugh were gone, the phrase â€œbaby daddyâ€ will be replaced by the title â€œhusband.â€ Instead of two-thirds of children being born out of wedlock, babies will be born to a woman with a ring on her finger and a father for her child. A 32-year-old grandmother will be a very rare thing. But Rush Limbaugh is obviously preventing this from happening!

If only Rush Limbaugh could be fired, teen-agers will stay in school and read on grade level and graduate. Teachers won't have to worry about being assaulted, the resource officers won't have to wear Kevlar vests, suspensions and expulsions will be a thing of the past. The word â€œremedialâ€ will never be used, extra police won't have to be brought in when certain schools make the championship game, free lunch won't be the main meal of the day.

If only we could get Rush Limbaugh to shut up, things would improve for black Americans.The f-word will go out of style. Women will be called women and men will sing about loving them, not sodomizing them.

The funeral homes will only bury old people and they won't need to print those memorial t-shirts with the picture and the date someone's baby was gunned down.

If there is a popping noise outside the window at night it's because the neighbor kids are playing with firecrackers. If the ambulance comes to the neighborhood it's because somebody's sick. If there's the sound of breaking glass, it's followed by the sound of a sweeping broom.

And the crack and the chronic and the malt liquor will be gone. Young men will sell cars and computers instead of cocaine and heroin. The murderous grip of addiction will be loosened. Rehab will be what people do to their guest room, not where they spend the summer.

If only those mean awful radio talk show hosts could be silenced then jail will not be glorified and lawlessness will not be tolerated. Teen-agers will join churches, not gangs, and getting good grades won't get a kid beaten up, mocked or ostracized. Playground scuffles will only be scuffles, the open-air market will sell vegetables, and the police won't be seen as the enemy. Nobody will ever hear the words "stop snitchin'" as a community motto.

The neighborhood stores will be owned by black families who will use their profits to buy a home and send their children to law school and medical school. The rising scourge of diabetes will be eradicated and regular health care will be sought and received.

Guns will be sold in stores for hunting, not on street corners for robbing. Children will be loved and cared for. At 2 o'clock in the morning, the streets will be deserted and people will be home in bed. More people will pay Social Security, instead of receive Social Security.

All those noble dreams (of Dr. King and most PEOPLE) are obviously being stymied and obstructed by those white radio talk show hosts!

Yes, Fire Rush Limbaugh! He's to blame for the plight of black America!

Limbaugh

Maria Niles — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:25:16 -0500

Rush Limbaugh was fired previously from ESPN for his offensive racial remarks about Philadelphia Eagles QB Donavan McNabb.

And although you can subscribe to Premier Radio Network shows, they are syndicated and broadcast over the air so Americans could make complaints about Limbaugh's content to the FCC. Also, Clear Channel is publicly traded so stockholders could complain. Employees and board members could speak up. The public could complain to advertisers on the show and pressure them to withdraw support.

However, unlike the Imus situation where all of these things happened I think there are a few differences which will prevent them from happening now. As with Imus, there is a sadly enormous appetite for the ugly, nasty and negative "shock" that spews forth from our airwaves and as long as folks continue to make a lot of money from it, it's not going anywhere. Imus started costing his employers money which is ultimately why he was fired.

I think there was a slightly different perception with Imus in that he picked on a group of people that were considered not fair game. Politicians are. Also, unlike Imus' pure name calling, Limbaugh's piece can be considered satire (albeit crude and unfunny) and uses elements that African American's have also used (Debra Dickerson writing in Salon that Obama isn't authentically black, Dave Chappelle showing a black man in a KKK) which will be used to more effectively shield him from criticism than Imus trying to use his "black rappers said it first" defense. And I'm enough of a cynic to think that given that the same radio network hosts a number of "positive" shows and employs some prominent African Americans including Jesse Jackson there might be some hesitancy to speak out in this case lest the axe swing both ways.

I do think you make a very good point - I absolutely think we should pay attention to what is on our airwaves. I think we need to think critically about to what we want to grant the privilege of using our limited resource of public airwaves. But, as long as ugliness and hatred sell, it will just be available differently like on satellite radio or pay cable.

At this point, I can't imagine how ugly and offensive Limbaugh would have to get before he would finally be seen as a liability rather than an asset.

Rush Limbaugh: Should - or can - he be fired?

lainad — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:16:38 -0500

What started off as a radio clip on Rush Limbaughâ€™s radio show, apparently inspired from an article written in the LA Times, a racist parody involving Rev. Al Sharpton and Presidential candidate Barack Obama (â€œU da real Negro, screw Obamaâ€) was turned into a video clip (â€œBarak the Magic Negroâ€), which Limbaugh initially posted on his site this week, initially only available to subscribers but eventually leaked to countless websites and blogs. The video according to Diversity Inc. suggests that Barak Obama is a manufactured black man and points out the perceived racial differences between the two men. Despite the outrage over the video, can Limbaugh be fired?

Because his radio show is hosted by Premiere Radio Networks, a division of privately-owned Clear Channel, where listeners subscribe to listen to the show (which, according to Premiere Radio Networks has 20 million listeners per week) donâ€™t expect the Network to take the publicâ€™s outrage over the radio skit and video into consideration.

If the Don Imus controversy hadnâ€™t become national news, would we even be talking about Limbaugh? After all, like Imus, Limbaugh has had a long history of making offensive remarks on his show, such as criticizing Obama on previous shows and most notably, accusing Michael J. Fox of not taking his medicine for his Parkinson's Disease to exxagerate his sysmptoms to fight for stem-cell research. For someone who is being lauded for raising money for the Lukemia & Lymphoma society, isn't criticizing Fox a tad hypocritical?

In Imusâ€™s case, general stereotypes about the black community were used to deflect his actions, as far too many people somehow felt that the actions of all African Americans were the root cause behind Imusâ€™s usage of words. Freedom of speech and the perceived constraints of political correctness were debated. Is now the time to take a firm stand against all media figures who espouse racial ideology to incite the public, or will Imus take the fall for them? Is the firing of one radio host enough to quell the actions of others? In Limbaughâ€™s case, he accuses the â€œleftâ€ of creating the term â€œmagic negro,â€ claiming that Sen. Ted Kennedy first used the term, therefore insinuating that â€œthe leftâ€ are just, if not more racist than him:

The only thing that matters is that he's black and he sounds good and it allows you white racists to assuage your guilt. Well, there is white racism out there. Much of it is on the left where the plantation mentality still resides.

Now, let me ask you a question. The term "Magic Negro" has been thrown into the political presidential race in the mix for 2008. And the term "Magic Negro," as applied to Barack Obama, has been done by an L.A. Times columnist, David Ehrenstein. What do you think? If I keep referring to Obama as the "Magic Negro" from this day on, I will eventually get the credit and/or heat for this. "Magic Negro." It is a term, and it's exactly as described here. Its purpose is to allow whites the guilt-free support. But in Barack's case, it's only 'cause he isn't a real black.(From Media Matters.org).

However, he does not defend the mockery of what he and the videoâ€™s voice impersonator Paul Shanklin perceive as black vernacular, insinuating that I guess, a lot of us non magic negroes use in everyday conversation. In defense of Limbaugh (and I'm stretching here), political satire is commonplace, not only on his radio show but in several, if not all national newspapers. It is part of the game. But in light of the Imus contreversy, should we start paying more attention to what is being aired on the radio? According to the ratings for Limbaugh's show, this is going to be one long and arduous fight.