DEATHS ; Notable Passings; The Thread to Pay Last Respects

[Bamaboots]

He sucked on Monday Night Football!

 

[LizzieMaine]

I too listened to the late Mr. Limbaugh for many years, following the philosophy expressed above by Worf. I came to have a considerable respect for his abilities as a performer -- he understood microphone technique, how to build a consistent broadcast persona, and how to use radio to manipulate his audience far better than most of his colleagues. That persona coalesced around 1991-92, and he maintained it with little change beyond that point for the rest of his broadcast career. He clearly knew and understood exactly what he was doing -- as a performer.

And that, in the end, is what he was. David Brudnoy, mentioned above, was a sincere and thoughtful libertarian conservative playing the role of a talk-show host. Mr. Limbaugh, I long ago concluded, was a performer playing the role of a nationalist-populist agitator, adopting whatever shading of that doctrine that happened to be fashionable at the moment to maintain the persona. It was less journalism -- and I *was* a journalist myself for quite a while, and I know and understand the disciplines of the field, just as having been an actress, I know and understand the disciplines of *that* field -- than it was performance art. To consider it otherwise is to be taken in by the realism of the performance, but it is, nevertheless, no more "real" than I am when I go on the radio to play the role of a cynical clam-shack proprietor. (I don't even *like* clams all that much.)

Mr. Limbaugh was a fine actor, and his sense of timing was such that he could have been an effective comedian had he chosen to follow that path. I will gladly grant that. But that's all he was. And that so many were convinced otherwise, and have since been convinced that other, similar performers are also legitimate journalists, is perhaps the most unfortunate legacy that he will leave behind.

 

[Tiki Tom]

As Lizzie noted: "designed not to persuade the opposition but to rile the base."
That pretty much sums it up. And the tactic has been adopted by too much of the media these days, making it all too easy for any one of us to live in an echo chamber 24/7, without ever having to hear the other side of the discussion.

 

[OldStrummer]

Rush Limbaugh had his adherents and his detractors. Death has not silenced that din. I give the man credit for spending his life doing what he loved, and building a brand when others would not have him. There are many who cannot make that claim.

 

[Harp]

and how to use radio to manipulate his audience far better than most of his colleagues.
And that, in the end, is what he was.
And that so many were convinced otherwise, and have since been convinced that other, similar performers are also legitimate journalists, is perhaps the most unfortunate legacy that he will leave behind.

Ad hominem, irrelevant. Limbaugh never claimed to be a journalist. As a matter of fact he often railed
against such tag citing that he was a radio broadcaster, a performer, a personality. The views he expressed
were his own, he confronted the culture at large and let the chips fall where might. Nor was his audience
so manipulated, a canard I've often heard derogatorily stated; neither were they intellectually inferior, ad hominem writ large and yet another falsehood. I return to my earlier thesis: progressivism is a bankrupt philosophy, and its espouse is more often ad hominem attack than cogent, tightly reasoned, rational argument.
A decided lack of rigor indicative of weakness.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Note, please, that I have made no attacks on conservatism as a philosophy whatever -- it's one I don't agree with, but I have no personal quarrel with any here who do. But I'm sure you'll agree that there are many on that side of the media divide who seem more concerned with "pwning the libs" than with actually advancing their beliefs in a calm and reasoned manner in the style of the late and lamented Mr. Brudnoy. Barry Farber and Avi Nelson were a couple of other talk-radio conservatives of the pre-Limbaugh era who could not have existed in the present climate of where "lib pwning" seems to be the primary purpose of the medium.

That shift is the direct consequence of the "dittohead" craze of the mid-90s, and that craze was driven almost entirely by Mr. Limbaugh's personal charisma rather than by any cogent presentation of fact or encouragement of rational debate on his programs. I was a regular listener, but I found nothing particularly rational or convincing about any of the arguments I heard there. Having grown up listening to the likes of Jerry Williams and Barry Gray, I knew how a really penetrating radio interviewer worked, and I just never got that from Limbaugh's program.

That attitude, though, the whole "pwn the opposition" concept, has spread all over media now. It's not enough to disagree with your opponent, you have to "destroy" them. The current crop of You Tube commentators is sad evidence of where that particular trail leads -- and it's just as obnoxious from the left as from the right. And it all started in the early '90s with Mr. Limbaugh. Some of the schtick came from Morton Downey Junior, and some of it went back to Joe Pyne -- but Mr. Limbaugh found precisely the right combination to resonate with a particular audience, and when broadcasting companies -- emboldened not just by the end of the Fairness Doctrine, but by the 1990s deregulation of station ownership laws -- saw that it was a fast way to make easy money going after this audience, there was no looking back. And I don't believe the impact, either on the media or on society has been at all positive. The evidence of that is visible everywhere you look.

The other point, though, is one worth of even more thought. If a man like Mr. Limbaugh is admittedly not a journalist trained in the documentation or analysis of facts and merely a performer and a personality, what is it, precisely, that makes his opinions worthy of a vast national platform? If he's just some loudmouthed guy from Missouri, then what makes his opinion any more worthy of consideration than the guy spouting off down at the end of your local bar? I don't ask this question looking for a specific answer, I just think it's one worth meditating on, especially when the media is infested right now with talking haircuts whose opinions are of no more intrinsic worth than those of anyone else except that someone has groomed and packaged them to promote a particular point of view. Or is the simple fact that someone is bellowing into a microphone or bugging their eyes into a camera enough to give their opinion credibility? Is "the medium" *really* "the message?"

 

[belfastboy]

Ad hominem, irrelevant. Limbaugh never claimed to be a journalist. As a matter of fact he often railed
against such tag citing that he was a radio broadcaster, a performer, a personality. The views he expressed
were his own, he confronted the culture at large and let the chips fall where might. Nor was his audience
so manipulated, a canard I've often heard derogatorily stated; neither were they intellectually inferior, ad hominem writ large and yet another falsehood. I return to my earlier thesis: progressivism is a bankrupt philosophy, and its espouse is more often ad hominem attack than cogent, tightly reasoned, rational argument.
A decided lack of rigor indicative of weakness.

Thank you for this....well stated.

 

[Harp]

Note, please, that I have made no attacks on conservatism as a philosophy whatever -- it's one I don't agree with, but I have no personal quarrel with any here who do. But I'm sure you'll agree that there are many on that side of the media divide who seem more concerned with "pwning the libs" than with actually advancing their beliefs in a calm and reasoned manner in the style of the late and lamented Mr. Brudnoy. Barry Farber and Avi Nelson were a couple of other talk-radio conservatives of the pre-Limbaugh era who could not have existed in the present climate of where "lib pwning" seems to be the primary purpose of the medium.

That shift is the direct consequence of the "dittohead" craze of the mid-90s, and that craze was driven almost entirely by Mr. Limbaugh's personal charisma rather than by any cogent presentation of fact or encouragement of rational debate on his programs. I was a regular listener, but I found nothing particularly rational or convincing about any of the arguments I heard there. Having grown up listening to the likes of Jerry Williams and Barry Gray, I knew how a really penetrating radio interviewer worked, and I just never got that from Limbaugh's program.

That attitude, though, the whole "pwn the opposition" concept, has spread all over media now. It's not enough to disagree with your opponent, you have to "destroy" them. The current crop of You Tube commentators is sad evidence of where that particular trail leads -- and it's just as obnoxious from the left as from the right. And it all started in the early '90s with Mr. Limbaugh. Some of the schtick came from Morton Downey Junior, and some of it went back to Joe Pyne -- but Mr. Limbaugh found precisely the right combination to resonate with a particular audience, and when broadcasting companies -- emboldened not just by the end of the Fairness Doctrine, but by the 1990s deregulation of station ownership laws -- saw that it was a fast way to make easy money going after this audience, there was no looking back. And I don't believe the impact, either on the media or on society has been at all positive. The evidence of that is visible everywhere you look.

The other point, though, is one worth of even more thought. If a man like Mr. Limbaugh is admittedly not a journalist trained in the documentation or analysis of facts and merely a performer and a personality, what is it, precisely, that makes his opinions worthy of a vast national platform? If he's just some loudmouthed guy from Missouri, then what makes his opinion any more worthy of consideration than the guy spouting off down at the end of your local bar? I don't ask this question looking for a specific answer, I just think it's one worth meditating on, especially when the media is infested right now with talking haircuts whose opinions are of no more intrinsic worth than those of anyone else except that someone has groomed and packaged them to promote a particular point of view. Or is the simple fact that someone is bellowing into a microphone or bugging their eyes into a camera enough to give their opinion credibility? Is "the medium" *really* "the message?"

Earlier, after prosecution rested I asked motion for a direct verdict for failure; and facetiousness aside,
a lack of precise argument without focus seems prosecution's tactic. First, defense did not cite a conservative
adversarial bias; merely that defense found progressivism bankrupt, a weakness that the decedent
fully understood, and regularly offered solid reasoning to refute opposition claim thereto. Other talk
radio programs are not relevant to this supposition.

Caustic progressive radio wither and yon fail free market competition; Fairness Doctrine demise
notwithstanding. Lacking substance and objective analysis disadvantages one side of the radio dial,
as its printed cousins struggle to remain relevant and fiscally viable competitors.

Journalism, leveled from profession to occupation has been called out by a more discriminating
and sophisticated public. A public that enjoys unparalleled informative source. That the public
gravitated to decedent is indicative of his intellectual grasp, humor, and reasoned soundness.
The salient facts are undeniable honesty and courage tethered to solid conservative reason.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Tsk. Counsel is offering numerous unsupported assertions as fact -- which was also an unfortunate trademark of the decedent.

I really do miss David Brudnoy, though. He was a great broadcaster and a good man, the likes of whom could never find a place in the media climate of today. It's certainly worth asking ourselves exactly why that is.

 

[Harp]

Tsk. Counsel is offering numerous unsupported assertions as fact -- which was also an unfortunate trademark of the decedent.

As I remarked Ad hominem irrelevant. Defense refuted prosecution errors with fact, said correction unchallenged
prosecution; now prosecution commits unsubstantiated allegation as "trademark" of the deceased.
A lack of precise argument without focus as prosecution so ably demonstrates coupled with evident reluctance
to engage factual debate. A decided lack of rigor indicative of weakness.

....but I'm just having fun never mind

 

[ChiTownScion]

Evidence presented prior to a motion to dismiss is always viewed for the purpose of that motion in a light most favorable to the non- moving party. Which is why they are rarely granted.

If the prosecution's case is particularly weak, or at least weak enough to not meet the final burden of proving the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt even where all the prima facie element boxes have been checked, the savvy judge may turn to defense counsel after denying said motion, "Do you now rest?"

Been on the receiving end of that as counsel for the defense many times- and I never know how I am to take it. Am I being flattered because I've just been told that I've won the case? Or am I being hit over the head in chastisement because I'm too dimwitted to realize that I should quit while I'm ahead?

 

[Harp]

.

If the prosecution's case is particularly weak, or at least weak enough to not meet the final burden of proving the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt even where all the prima facie element boxes have been checked, the savvy judge may turn to defense counsel after denying said motion, "Do you now rest?"

The learned trial judge denied motion as expected.
Cook County Circuit Democrat just retained, and the rumor that Mike Madigan had resigned Illinois House all abuzz--
Early adjourn. Lizzie a real wildcat in court today. And she's got this old fashioned accordion briefcase.
I was going to ask about it but she was fit to be tied after the motion.
Such a commotion.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

I'm not a fan of TV courtroom dramas, hopefully a celeb will kick the bucket soon so we can change channel.

 

[LizzieMaine]

One thing for sure, though -- I don't remember any debates like this when Brudnoy died.

 

[Harp]

I'm not a fan of TV courtroom dramas, hopefully a celeb will kick the bucket soon so we can change channel.

A celeb radio personality just passed. And you can change channel- your own choice-any time.

 

[Harp]

One thing for sure, though -- I don't remember any debates like this when Brudnoy died.

Limbaugh was a lightning rod.

 

[LizzieMaine]

You would have like Brudnoy a lot, I think. He was a very intellectually-oriented guy with a real gift for getting to the core of complex ideas, whether he was discussing political theory or stamp collecting. And unlike any contemporary radio/internet talker, he sincerely wanted to understand his guests' or callers' points of view, and he never came across as cruel, mean-spirited, or offended that his guests often didn't agree with him. He was, in reality, what the also-late Mr. Buckley only pretended to be.

(And no, this isn't off topic. Brudnoy is dead, but since he died in 2004, I don't imagine he came to the attention of the then-infant, then largely west-coast-oriented Fedora Lounge at that time.)

 

[belfastboy]

One thing for sure, though -- I don't remember any debates like this when Brudnoy died.

I suspect that, like me, no one knew who the hell he was .....if a tree falls in the forest......

 

[Worf]

To use one of my fave quotes..... form an episode of "Cheers" no less. Lilith and Frazier were debating on a TV show

""You got any idea what they're saying?"
"Not really but I pick up a word here or there..."
"Uh Oh they must be fighting he just begged for Merci".

Worf

 

[Harp]

"Uh Oh they must be fighting he just begged for Merci".

Worf

Mai bien sur.