Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A New Attack on Rush
National Review Online ^ | May 28, 2004 | Byron York

Posted on 05/30/2004 7:30:48 PM PDT by neverdem

E-mail Author

Author Archive

Send to a Friend

<% printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%> Print Version


A New Attack on Rush
David Brock doesn't want American soldiers to hear Limbaugh.

David Brock, the former self-described "right-wing hit man" turned "progressive" activist, is escalating his campaign against conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.

Brock runs a new organization called Media Matters for America, which, according to Brock, was created to fight "conservative misinformation" in the media (see "David Brock is Buzzing Again," NR, June 14, 2004). Earlier this month, Brock and Media Matters produced a television commercial attacking Limbaugh for comments about the Abu Ghraib prison-abuse scandal. Brock, who has raised more than $2 million for his new venture, spent $100,000 to air the spot on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Fox, and ESPN.

Now, Brock has written a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asking that the Pentagon remove Limbaugh's program from the American Forces Radio and Television Service, formerly known as Armed Forces Radio. Arguing that Limbaugh has condoned the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Brock wrote, "It is abhorrent that the American taxpayer is paying to broadcast what is in effect pro-torture propaganda to American troops." Brock asked Rumsfeld to consider removing the Limbaugh program to "protect" American troops from Limbaugh's "reckless and dangerous messages." Brock also expressed concern that Limbaugh "continually uses prejudiced rhetoric that divides rather than unites Americans."

Brock based his letter in large part on a story that appeared Wednesday in the anti-Bush online magazine Salon. That article, "Rush's Forced Conscripts," in turn relied on Brock and other critics, like Limbaugh competitor Al Franken of the new liberal talk-radio network Air America, to accuse American Forces Radio of a "rightward tilt" and of airing a generous portion of Limbaugh while not allowing liberal voices to be heard. Limbaugh, according to Franken, provides "a bad message for troops to be hearing."

Salon editor David Talbot followed up, in "Turn Off Rush, Turn On Salon," by denouncing military broadcasters who, he said, give soldiers "a daily dose of poison from Rush Limbaugh." Talbot wrote that American Forces Radio "bombard[s]" military men and women with "Limbaugh's incendiary tirades, to the exclusion of all other voices."

"Rush's Forced Conscripts" discounted the argument of American Forces Radio chief Melvin Russell, who told Salon that his service included Limbaugh on the basis of Limbaugh's popularity, and that American Forces also provides programming from National Public Radio. That's not the same thing, Franken explained: "Rush's message is that liberals hate America, while NPR is straight-ahead reporting and journalism."

But American Forces Radio provides not only NPR programs like Morning Edition and All Things Considered but NPR commentary, as well. American military men and women abroad have access, for example, to the talk show of liberal host Diane Rehm. Indeed, Rehm's biographical sketch on the NPR website says her program is "heard on U.S. military instillations around the world via Armed Forces Radio." (For a schedule of NPR programs provided to American Forces Radio, click here.)

Military listeners can also hear NPR's Tavis Smiley Show, Talk of the Nation, and Fresh Air programs. Beyond NPR, listeners can also hear brief commentaries by former talk-show host Jim Hightower and CBS News anchorman Dan Rather. Viewed as a whole, the list of names suggests that military listeners, if they want to hear a variety of views, can do so on American Forces Radio.

But according to those who design its programming, the point of American Forces Radio is not to provide some sort of perfect ideological balance but rather to give military men and women a representative sample of the programming they could hear at home. To that end, American Forces Radio provides about 1,200 different programs to military radio stations around the world, which then make up their own schedules. "We try to provide a cross-section of programming that they would have available to [soldiers] were they stateside," says Melvin Russell. "We feel that the variety, the 1,200 programs that we offer each week, gives us that balance that we're looking for."

Most of those programs are music shows, but there is a significant news and talk lineup as well. If you liked to listen to Dr. Laura Schlessinger at home, and you're stationed in South Korea, you can listen to her there, too (the first hour of her program is included in American Forces Radio, just as the first hour of Limbaugh's program is provided). If you liked NPR's Car Talk at home, you can listen overseas, too. If you preferred Dan Patrick's ESPN Radio show, that's there, too.

Given that, it would be odd if American Forces Radio attempted to replicate the menu of radio choices available in the United States and decided not to include Limbaugh, who produces one of the most popular programs in America.

The reality is that the talk-radio market in the United States is not balanced; conservatives have been far more successful than liberals in making a product that people want to hear. That fact is the premise for the creation of the Air America network. Maybe that network will grow into a significant force, but for now, there is no dominant, single liberal voice on national radio today whose inclusion would be mandatory if one were making up a representative sample of American radio programming. Liberals have said as much many times as they (unsuccessfully) searched for that very thing.

As for Air America itself, it has been on the air less than two months, is heard on only a handful of stations, and faces an uncertain financial future. If it succeeds, portions of its programming might well be included in the American Forces lineup. For now, people on military bases with access to the Internet can listen to Air America on the web — just like they would at home.

The critics' real argument, it seems, is not so much with American Forces Radio, and the way it makes its programming decisions, as it is with Limbaugh himself. And that is nothing new.

 

     


 

 
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200405280844.asp
     



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: abughraib; afr; airamerica; armedforcesradio; brockisanancyboy; byronyork; davidbrock; iraq; rush; rushlimbaugh
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 last
To: get'emall
Does Soros pay Brock more than ErrAmerika pays alFranken?

Maybe. Actually, Hitlery got a hold of Brock's FBI File, and he has never been the same, since! ;-)

41 posted on 05/31/2004 3:10:15 AM PDT by SubMareener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
You called it right, even if it was deleted!!!

You can no longer call people what Brits call a handrolled cigarette????

42 posted on 05/31/2004 4:57:05 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown" -- harpseal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ethyl
That's not the same thing, Franken explained: "Rush's message is that liberals hate America, while NPR is straight-ahead reporting and journalism.

If I understand Mr Franken's statement, he is saying that NPR has started echoing Rush's message? Wonderful!


gitmo
43 posted on 05/31/2004 5:07:05 AM PDT by gitmo (Thanks, Mel. I needed that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The reality is that the talk-radio market in the United States is not balanced; conservatives have been far more successful than liberals in making a product that people want to hear.

The problem here is the commentator is misapplying the word 'balanced'. His vision of balance is based on opinions. If you applied this definition to building a house, doors would open or shut on their own, windows would jam, and a marble placed on the floor would roll to one end of the house. That's why we use a plumbline as the standard in constructing a house, not opinion.

Balance should be centered on truth, not on opinion. If you use truth as the standard for measuring balance, NPR is far from balanced. Rush is pretty darned close to plumb.

gitmo
44 posted on 05/31/2004 5:17:53 AM PDT by gitmo (Thanks, Mel. I needed that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

David Brock, Liar
A lifelong habit proves hard to break.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Wednesday, March 27, 2002, at 9:11 AM PT


45 posted on 05/31/2004 5:33:10 AM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

But if I really say it... The radio won't play it... So I guess I'll hafta lay it... BETWEEN THE LINES!!!


46 posted on 05/31/2004 7:32:22 AM PDT by SierraWasp (STOP PREMPTIVE JOURNALISM!!! A malevolent media can kill America's will, AGAIN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: backhoe

Thanks for the links. Your links remind me of how strange these days are for the ACLU, backing Rush in this case and the NRA in CFR, while their heroes Alan Dershowitz(sp?) and Laurence Tribe say the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right.


47 posted on 05/31/2004 12:27:09 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
If I remember right, Rush is only on for one hour. Perhaps a member of our fighting forces can confirm this. If so, I will write a letter to Rumsfeld encouraging him to broadcast all three hours of Rush's show.

You remember correctly (but I'm not a member of our fighting forces) and I said the same thing on another thread. Stick it in their eye by putting him on 3 hours a day.

48 posted on 05/31/2004 12:54:30 PM PDT by b4its2late (Every morning is the dawn of a new error...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Your links remind me of how strange these days are for the ACLU, backing Rush in this case and the NRA in CFR, while their heroes Alan Dershowitz(sp?) and Laurence Tribe say the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right.

Bizzare, isn't it?

49 posted on 05/31/2004 1:18:16 PM PDT by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
For the record, Rush didn't condone the so called abuses, he just thinks they were over reacted to for political purposes, as do I!!!!

Exactly. I agreed pretty much with everything Rush said.

Not only have the abuses been blown totally out of perspective for political purposes, but now they are doing the same thing with Rush's comments.
The deceitfulness of the left knows no bounds.

50 posted on 05/31/2004 5:51:00 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson