Ann Althouse has an interesting account of the largely favorable New York Times Magazine story on Rush Limbaugh. I was surprised that Althouse listens regularly to Limbaugh. As far as I know (and I am probably wrong on this), none of my friends watches or listens regularly to Limbaugh, Hannity, or O'Reilly. I haven't watched even 5 minutes of O'Reilly in many years, I see a few minutes of Hannity every month or so when switching channels (about as much as I see of Keith Olbermann), and Limbaugh I hear perhaps twice a year when I'm in a rental car and can't find anything else worth listening to.
What struck me about Ann's post was her discussion of how Limbaugh thinks through his ideas. She first quotes Limbaugh's response to a question about how he was going to handle Barack Obama:
“I haven’t yet figured that out exactly,” he said. “You know, I’ve had a problem with substance abuse. I don’t deal with the future anymore. I take things one day at a time.” . . .
[Ira] Glass compares Limbaugh to another exceptional free-form radio monologist, Howard Stern. “A lot of people dismiss them both as pandering and proselytizing and playing to the lowest common denominator, but I think that misses everything important about their shows,” he says. “They both think through their ideas in real time on the air, they both have a lot more warmth than they’re generally given credit for, they both created an entire radio aesthetic.”
Ann offers these comments:
Glass — who is one of the public figures in America who should be counted on those 2 hands — is absolutely right about Limbaugh and Stern. That explains very well why I listen to all 3 men.
And these:
I think [Limbaugh] knows that doing things day-by-day keeps the show alive and makes it work. It's what works in blogging too. If you have a whole planned agenda and you just crank out the propaganda, people will get sick of you. It's when you are talking/writing to figure out what you think, to find out what you want to say, that you are interesting.
I share Ann's affection for bloggers who are trying to observe and understand what they are writing about, rather than always writing op-eds with a thesis they are trying to prove (which is one reason that I enjoy reading her blog). Unfortunately, I find that many blog readers prefer strongly thesis-driven posts, which they can either echo or attack point by point.
And how many liberal hosts have one other person in the studio, like Limbaugh has for the past 18 years -- who happens to be black? [answer: zero].
Face it, the guy is entertaining, or they wouldn't be paying him so much.
Undoubtably. But if Limbaugh's potential audience felt that way, he wouldn't be as popular as he is, would he?
So you have two possible conclusions: (1) radio listeners are profoundly different from blog readers, so that popularity in talk radio stems from very different causes than popularity in blogging, or (2) the number of blog readers who conform to your "unfortunately" characterization may well be numerous in absolute numbers, but must be in the minority overall.
Which do you prefer?
On the other hand, Limbaugh is very smart, very engaging often self-deprecating in funny ways. While you can't take too much, he is well worth listening to, and most conservatives will agree with most of what he says; libertarians somewhat less, but still a lot.
Howard Stern can't possibly be liberal, he's had one other person in the studio with him "who happens to be black" for [longer than] the past 18 years.
That's a sound take on those three. I listen to Rush mostly in the summer on the beach, but I can't get anywhere near the full 3 hours, just popping in here and there.
Some years ago I liked O'Reilly on TV, never took much to his radio show, but for some time now he's been the bully you describe. It's positively painful to listen to his castigation of the oil industry on the few times I've heard him of late. He's so clueless on this issue that he'd not grab a life preserver if anyone would try to through him one.
Of course, he's going for ratings, so I have to assume that he "gets it" in the make-up room.
But its hard to imagine anyone on the conservative side not being aware that what they think and what's on the agenda on the conservative side of the news has been, in greater or lesser extent, channeled by Rush.
I didn't give you my views on all three, but my views of Hannity and O'Reilly roughly match yours (though Hannity's earnestness sometimes makes up for his lack of cleverness and the sexual harrassment allegations against O'Reilly have further lowered my impression of him).
My view of Limbaugh is certainly more positive than of the other two, but not as positive as yours. He is smart -- and sometimes witty -- but his ego seems just too upfront for my taste.
Jim Lindgren
I haven't listened to him much over the years, and don't have time to listen in the middle of the day. I'm stuck with NPR. If Rush could get a drive-time show he'd double his audience and his income!
BINGO!(*) True, I disagree with everything he says, but the same goes for Larry Elder and Mark Levin, both of whom I enjoy anyway, and both of whom also have big egos, just not the pompous Rush style I find insufferable.
(*) The same problem I had, by the way, with Rush's nemesis, Al Franken. I could have forgiven that he didn't have a fraction of Rush's radio talent, but the incessant laughing at his own jokes, none of which were funny, was too much to take. Fortunately, he had politics to fail into.
From 1994 on he had the bully pulpit and he used it to blast Democratic misdeeds and ignore Republican ones. If he had derided Republican misdeeds to his largely Republican audience with equal vigor he might, singlehandedly, have kept the Republican party on the straight and narrow.
I think what people don't like is that this is what people want.
I listen to both Limbaugh and Hannity periodically. I find Hannity's repetition of what others have said to be a strength - it means that he actually considers facts and views of others, even when not always favorable to his view.
Without doubting his intelligence - indeed I think he does it on purpose - Limbaugh simply ignores any fact that might mitigate his view point. It is not his political views that I find offensive (though I disagree with many of them), but rather his nearly complete lack of intellectual honesty. The greenhouse gas example discussed above is one example.
You mean, why isn't anyone out there "speading lies and left wing propaganda every day"? I believe Air America went into bankruptcy. But you are right of course. The only way to combat speech you disagree with is by banning it. Those who thought that free speech meant something are (admittedly slowly) begining to see the light. And it's all thanks to people like you.
It's fine as entertainment. But intellectual political voices? Hardly. You just watch ... today Ann is a fan, because there's a positive NYT piece. Tomorrow, she'll disavow her support.
Ditto Limbaugh. It's fine to sling arrows, but after so many years particularly with so much power, he seems pretty impotent as any time of intellectual "leader".
Watch Ann's blog. Same thing. She's a Democrat, she likes Bush. Oops, that was yesterday. Now she's read the polls and her Bush fever -- not so strong.
You'd think at their ages (57), some solid core principles would be formed. At some point, you stand by your views and exhibit consistent thinking.
Sure the "what am I about today?" attitude is fun, youthful like. But folks in their 50s really ought to stand by their past blogs and broadcasts.
Measured this way, Ann and Rush are purely entertainers, purveying drivel and contributing to the trivial silliness that the airwaves are currently flooded with. Both seem to have been brough up fairly affluently, and thus they can "escape" the petty details of their intellectual flights, and walk away from those obvious failures.
Trust me: Ann the entertaining blogger is not the same thing as Ann the intellectually contributing law professor. She's riding that tenured horse, and her blog contributions are mostly hollow. Sure is purty tho... and so young looking! Still, somehow I think Limbaugh (and Stern) are into a different type of chick.
It was the hypocrisy he exposed. If it's wrong for the poor to abuse illegal drugs, ditto for the Big Fat Guy.
But if you allow loopholes for our better bred, you're pretty much a hypocrite and just looking out for your own. And with Rush, he's got none of his own, so he's free to write the rules as he goes.
Limbaugh loses that sometimes, say when he goes on a moralism binge, and then the show is pretty unlistenable for a couple of weeks until he gets over it.
Audio of Al Franken, on Imus Nov 11 2005, in a rare moment of self-deprecatory humor, real audio here . If the left could do that most of the time, instead of once every decade, they'd have a successful radio show like Limbaugh.
I listen every day as I work, mostly in the background.
If they listen to anybody, who would you think your friends listen to?
Some may find them entertaining, but they hardly present thoughtful insights into issues.
I wouldn't expect an entertainer who works on air to provide much "intellectual" leadership. The audience for intellectual leadership is rather small, compared to the audience that Rush appeals to. I don't listen to him because there isn't much new meat to his arguments and he has to stretch them out over long periods of time.
I would agree however, with the assessment of Hannity as a lovable GOP shill. As for O'Reilly? Complete "pin head".
I agree that he is for the most part an entertainer, but so are all the bloggers and pundits. For most people, politics is just another form of entertainment. Limbaugh is just smarter than the pundits and bloggers because he has figured out a way to capitalize on that and make tens of millions of dollars. And somehow financial success and popularity with the unwashed always translates into contempt from the intelligentsia and chattering classes. I think Limbaugh has been healthy for our democracy, inasmuch as he has made politics more accessible and interesting (in other words, entertaining) for the middle and lower classes. There is no doubt why the elites on the left want to get him off the air and why elites on the right disdain him; all this democracy is very inconvenient.
He may be an entertainer, but his instincts on the issues are almost always right. Better than just about anyone else out there IMHO, at least from a Reagan/fusionist perspective.
I agree that on occassion he can be pompous but he is much more skilled than Sean Hannity. And his description of Bill O'Reilly ("He's Ted Baxter") is spot on.
Someone mentioned Michael Savage. I consider Savage a loathesome individual (as does Limbaugh)--a true race baiter. I am convinced at this point that Michael Savage is nothing more than parody--and that the person behind the Savage persona doesn't believe a thing he actually says. Savage wants conservatives to be seen as racist yahoos and he plays to that.
One final note. His father, grandfather, and brother are all lawyers. His uncle and cousin are federal judges. As a result, you will never hear him mock the law--even if he does mock legal rulings with which he disagrees. And to those who despise Limbaugh, imagine practicing law in Cape Girardeau, Missouri--home of the Rush Hudson Limbaugh, Sr. United States Courthouse.
Plus, the folowing is a tad sexist, don't you think?
His ego is a lot of the humor. When he talks about himself is when he tends to be the funniest, I think.
I listen to him just because I drive a lot for work, and All Things Considered doesn't start till 4pm...
How do I know what I think until I see what I say?
Saying the media is biased or wrong about facts doesn't save Limbaugh from the same errors.
Yep, the blog link in Brian G does appear to conflict with his statements regarding Obama. I should note, however, that I did not limit my comments to Obama supporters.
or maybe you don't lock your mind into one way of thinking and hold to something when the evidence doesn't fit it.
As for radio hosts. I find Limbaugh entertaining and listen to him at times. Although to be fair, my Ipod usually gets first air time. I can't stand either Hannity or O'Reilly.
I'm not necessarily sure of that, and this goes back to what people said about him being an entertainer.
Limbaugh caters in a substantial part to the demographic of people that someone described above when he said "here is something I have always thought but never heard anyone in the media brave enough to say." He's catering exactly to the audience that wants to hear a media figure say something and think "damn right!"
But it's easy enough to tell when Limbaugh is harping on a point for the sake of the point itself, or saying because it's what people want to hear. It's much harder to convince myself that either Hannity or O'Reilly have that same trait, although it must be true to some extent. When I hear them say something outrageously stupid and keep harping on it, I just end up getting annoyed and change the station.
I'm not sure we're addressing the same point though. When you say that Limbaugh says " 'here is something I have always thought but never heard anyone in the media brave enough to say,' " I'm saying that 50 % of that is untrue.
I have an XM radio in the car and on my way to work I flip between Hannity and Randi Rhodes.
Both spread a lot of BS, but for some reason Hannity just infuriates me with his baldfaced lying while RR is merely annoying.
Perhaps its his smugness because Al Franken's longtime guest host Tom Oliphant came off the same way and I found myself wanting to rip the radio out of the dash, even when I agreed with what he was saying.
True. There are plenty of exceptions in the straight comedy realm, not so much in the political comedy realm.
John Stewart is also self-deprecating, and very funny with spot-on timing.
I find Rush a little boring. I actually find Michael Savage very entertaining, but in small doses - much like Mike Malloy on the left. I don't know how much of Malloy's routine is just schtick, but Savage's clearly is.
Hannity, I agree is kind of dumb. I like Randi Rhodes in small doses.
If I find a post really wrong or comments on a correct post really wrong I'm way more likely to comment and ever revist the page to respond. Enough of those though and I'm more likely to get tired of the site.
I think my point holds even if it isn't true, or even really if you have the opposite reaction, because you're still listening to him.
How many people listen to Howard Stern and say "My god that's awful, how can he say that on the radio."
Either way, he's targeting a group of people that is listening just to hear him say something that many people think but don't say.
Um, it's a bit of an aside to the thread, but, so what? How much are they paying you? Do you have a contract with them to only give them what they want?
Write what you damn please.
That's an interesting listening profile. Is it fair to speculate it leaves you ignorant of what millions of Americans find important and influential? It reminds me a bit of the writer who didn't understand why Reagan(?) won the election since nobody she knew voted for him.
However, to be fair, perhape you have an alternative for gaining this information about the stuff millions find important? If so, please share it so I don't have to monitor these guys to keep up to speed on their issues.
It was Pauline Kael and Nixon, but the point is valid.
Hey, you must be a red diaper doper baby! :-( And sorry, whit, but I disagree with you about the entertaining part--self-deprecating plays especially well in America; Savage's viscous, nasty persona doesn't.
And yes, as many have pointed out, Rush is "for the most part an entertainer". But don't take that too far--Mike Royko, for example, wasn't an entertainer first, but his writing was darned entertaining, and he wouldn't have had the following he had if it wasn't.
And which I noted last night at 11:01 p.m. according to the blog's clock.
If Savage doesn't play well in American then how come he has (or so he claims) ten million listeners? There are problems with Savage, but not the ones people seem to harp on. I suspect that those who fling out insults like "racist" have never heard him at length.
Of the whole bunch he's the only one that's really critical of the Republicans and Bush. His demeanor is pure New York. Having grown up among people like him I'm not particularly put off by it. I regard the whole crowd as basically a bunch of entertainers, and on that scale Savage does well. But like the rest, he's in it for the money.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.