From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:31:01 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

[talk.politics.misc axed from Newsgroups line, sorry if that's where 
you're reading this]

art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>       Actually I think that the reason some of them miss the point is that 
>   Rush himself seems to contribute to the state of confusion with stuff like 
>   the "good reporting" comment last week.

>Crap.  He says over and over again that he is an entertainer, that he is
>in business to make money and the purpose of the calls is to make him
>look good.  Listen to him sometime I'm sure you'll hear it if you bother
>to listen.

    I listen to Rush almost every day (much to Mrs Engle's dismay), but 
I don't feel that the fact that Rush says things over and over constitutes 
categorical proof of their truth or falsehood. I happen to agree with that 
lady caller who felt that Rush is to an ever-increasing degree sacrificing 
entertainment for the purpose of taking every possible trivial jab at 
Bill Clinton. His periods of ranting are getting longer and he's taking 
less calls than I can remember for the past 2 years I've been listening.

>       Is entertainment the reason that Rush repeats his anti-liberal 
>   propaganda so much, or could it be that he's trying to make a point 
>   above and beyond the simple goal of making people laugh? Do you think 
>   that he really believes that liberal-bashing is funny no matter how 
>   often its repeated, or is he just willing to sacrifice a little humor 
>   for the purpose of bashing liberals?

>Of course he's trying to make a point.  He says that all the time too.
>Besides, why is it that just because he is an entertainer he is precluded
>from having an opinion?

    The fact that he's an entertainer does *not* preclude him from having 
opinions, but I'm curious whether you really believe that Rush's repetitive 
and almost interminable Clinton-bashing constitutes "Entertainment" rather 
than political commentary? If you would agree that it falls under the 
category of political commentary and if you would agree that Rush is 
focusing on Clinton more than ever, then would you also agree that the 
purely entertainment-orriented aspects of Rush's show are giving way to 
politics?

>  The fact is that he makes no bones about it.  He
>is open and straightforward about it.  He makes no effort to hide is
>positions.

    That's true, however it's beside the point. I wish I had a nickel for 
every time I've heard a Dittohead telling somebody to lighten up because 
Rush's show is just entertainment, and I wish I had a quarter for every 
time that same Dittohead has turned around and told the next person coming 
along that Rush's show is substantive and educational.

    You've said that Rush critics must be deaf if they can't figure out 
the difference between those two positions, but IMHO the confusion arises 
not from inattention but from actually listening to what Rush says from 
moment to moment and then trying to reconcile that with what his defenders 
in this group have said.

>   >  He even goes so far as to say the purpose of taking calls is to
>   >make him look good.  He's quite open about this, and anybody who doubts
>   >it just plain isn't listening.

>       Maybe they are simply listening more closely than you. None of my 
>   problems with Rush have arisen from anything besides his exact words. I 
>   think that perhaps you should join me in my scrutiny of those exact words 
>   before you assume that I haven't been listening. Inconsistancies are there 
>   if you bother to look for them.

>Sure there are some inconsistencies.  They just don't happen to comprise
>much of what he says.

    I'm not saying that they comprise that much of what he says either, 
but I *would* say that one of the areas in which inconsistencies exist is 
the claim that Rush's show is just entertainment. It's obvious to me that 
Rush's view of his programs' purpose is evolving away from simple 
entertainment and towards political commentary.

>  I hear him repeatedly saying he's there to make
>money, be an entertainer, has an anti-liberal agenda and the purpose of
>the calls is to make him look good.  I have never heard him claim to be
>unbiased, or even fair.

    No, to be perfectly honest I've never heard him claim to be unbiased 
or "fair", but I suppose that I just don't agree with the idea that the 
increasingly politicized ranting and raving we've been hearing serves the 
goal of being entertaining. My impression is that Rush's program is evolving 
from a vehicle through which people find out how funny Rush is into a 
vehicle through which people find what a staunch conservative he is. He 
certainly fits both descriptions, but I watch/listen to entertainment 
programs in order to be entertained, not to be lectured at.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy