The Rush Limbaugh – Al Sharpton Equivalency?

I was wondering if this was going to start happening and now it is. With all recent protesting over Rush Limbaugh, elements of the Right have started trying to get their own scalp and the most obvious target would be Al Sharpton because of his baggage. Sure enough, within the past couple of days the “Get Al” bandwagon has gotten underway with stories and audio appearing on Breitbart.com, The Examiner, and The American Spectator to name a few…

If this is just the beginning of the campaign and the MSM starts to note it as it did Limbaugh’s gaffe, it’s going to put MSNBC in a difficult position. All it takes is one or two Media Writers with enough clout to force MSNBC to weigh in on the validity of this criticism, something they most certainly would love to avoid doing at all costs. But it will be tough to ignore when you see articles like this

Using MSNBC’s own standards, should the man who once said the following be allowed to hold a primetime MSNBC slot?

David Dinkins, you wanna be the only nigger on television, only nigger in the newspaper, only nigger that can talk. Don’t cover them, don’t talk to them, ’cause you got the only nigger problem. ‘Cause you know if a black man stood up next to you, they would see you for the whore that you really are.

MSNBC will, with some justification, point out that this is some very very old territory to go over again. Having said that, Sharpton has never accounted for himself or repudiated his more controversial past in any significant manner. It continues to hang over him and, by extrapolation, MSNBC like a dark rain cloud that won’t go away.

This is why I was so vocal about MSNBC not hiring Sharpton…because he does carry so much unaccounted for baggage that is going to be repeatedly used against the network and this was a lose-lose scenario that could be easily avoided by not hiring him. Alas, MSNBC felt otherwise. Now it’s going to get dragged into the crosshairs, collateral damage of Al Sharpton. To what extent is not known yet. We will have to see how this plays out…

Advertisements

45 Responses to “The Rush Limbaugh – Al Sharpton Equivalency?”

  1. There is no way the MSM is going to cover Al Sharpton’s remarks the way it is STILL covering Rush’s. So MSNBC is somewhat safe as far as media coverage is concerned. The MSM already knew what Sharpton has said and it didn’t make a peep when he was hired by MSNBC and got his own show.
    I was born and raised in NYC and lived there until very recently. I can’t even begin to list all the racist, anti-semitic, anti-Asian, and misogynistic things the Rev. Sharpton has said in the past. Not to mention his involvement in the Tawana Brawley hoax (for which I don’t think he ever apologized). He ruined a district attorney’s reputation until the truth was finally figured out about Ms. Brawley. It’s amazing that this man sits on a panel on primary and election nights and is asked his opinions.

  2. savefarris Says:

    If MSNBC cared about standards, they wouldn’t have let O’Donnell make his threesome cracks last night.

    Al Sharpton will keep his show so long as the channel’s mission statement doesn’t change (and/or until Melissa Harris Perry starts getting some traction and they can replace Sharpton with a face of color.)

  3. jackyboy Says:

    ^Pretty much this. Sharpton isn’t going anywhere regardless how many people complain. MSNBC’s goal is not one of a news organization and as long as they keep their viewership Sharpton is safe.

  4. “MSNBC’s goal is not one of a news organization”

    Hit the nail on the head there. MSNBC gives a shallow pretense of “news” but everyone knows they’re not. Even Cenk Uyger and Keith Olbermann had to admit this.

  5. MSNBC considers Sharpton a safe bet to have Obama’s back. The rest doesn’t matter.

  6. Like Spud I wasn’t a fan of MSNBC hiring Al Sharpton; although my problem with the hire was that he was not his history of offensive remarks but rather that he was a poor on air performer.

    This looks like the right, seeing that it’s attempt to rehash Bill Maher past indiscretions failed, have now moved on to Al Sharpton. I don’t see this as a productive venture as the right as as many, if not more, oafs making offensive slurs as the left and so a tit for tat will only end up in endless squabbling.

    BTW my opinion of Sharpton’s on air skills has moderated somewhat after seeing his performances on the MSNBC election coverage. I’ll have to catch his show to see if it’s gotten any better.

  7. “MSNBC’s goal is not one of a news organization and as long as they keep their viewership Sharpton is safe.” – jackyboy

    What viewership? They are 9 times out of 10 the last in ratings in cable news.

    fritz, I’m not so sure the right’s attacks on Bill Maher haven’t worked. David Axelrod cancelled his appearance on REAL TIME.

  8. “I’m not so sure the right’s attacks on Bill Maher haven’t worked. David Axelrod cancelled his appearance on REAL TIME.”

    ^^That is true but guests are easier to replace than sponsers or radio stations and i just don’t think it’s that big a deal. Maybe if dozens of guests decide not to appear and Maher has to do his show alone it may become a big deal. That is unlikely to happen.

  9. watch, Maher’s million buck donation to Obama will get rejected.

  10. I think Maher is going to lose the real politicians, and it’s about time. The line between “comic” and “political commentator” has always been murky with him, and seems to get murkier each year.

  11. “I think Maher is going to lose the real politicians, and it’s about time. The line between “comic” and “political commentator” has always been murky with him, and seems to get murkier each year.”

    ^^You may be right but his show lives on the edge much like Imus and politicians can overlook a lot to get a bit of free publicity. Politicians on the left won’t have a problem but I expect moderate Democrats and Republicans may give the show a pass; at least until after the election.

  12. “What viewership? They are 9 times out of 10 the last in ratings in cable news.”

    ^^I just don’t think that is factually correct. Sharpton’s ratings are in the 700,000 – 1,000,000 range and that generally beats CNN and is comparable to what Ed had in that timeslot.

  13. mlong5000 Says:

    Well Joe maybe right David Axelrod has pulled out on going on Maher’s show and the Alabama Dems are scrubbing all mention of Maher heading their upcoming event…I guess it’d ironic that the Rush effect is biting so many Dems in the butt…something tells me people on the left are going to regret making such a big deal out of the Fluke Sl*t remarks.

    As for Sharpton 2 words Freddy’s Mart if he was never going to held accountable for that why should anyone expect him to held accountable for anything else?

  14. fritz, I agree, I never thought Al Sharpton was a good tv anchor. His ratings suggest otherwise, but I rarely watch it. The more I learn of his past comments the more I think MSNBC should never have waded into this mess because Sharpton is just not worth it. Really, I think they should just part ways.

    I know FOX News reigns supreme in cable tv news ratings. I don’t dispute that. MSNBC is, however, surpassing CNN in the ratings and that is undeniable. If they want to continue that pattern, they can’t abandon all connection to serious news for agenda driven politics.

  15. lonestar77 Says:

    ” I don’t see this as a productive venture as the right as as many, if not more, oafs making offensive slurs as the left and so a tit for tat will only end up in endless squabbling. ”

    That’s simply not correct. It may seem like it because everything somebody on the right says is highlighted, whether it’s an actual slur or a made up one.

    The right is forced to bring up all these examples to show the incredible hypocrisy being dispalyed by the left and the media. The difference is, no one is out there trying to get Maher & Sharpton fired. The left constantly tries to silence those who disagree with them. It’s what they do. The right highlights bias and hypocrisy. It’s what they do. They don’t go around trying to get people fired day in and day out.

  16. ^ ok, really, that is pious baloney. “The right highlights bias and hypocrisy. ” Oh please, this stuff happens on both sides. We all get outraged at people we don’t like and we defend people we like when they do the exact same thing. I never bought into the idea that one side is as pure as the driven snow and the other side is pure evil.

    Yes, Democrats are trying to capitalize on Rush’s vulgar comments. That’s politcs. When some dumb Democrat says something equally offensive, you can bet Republicans will bash the crap out of them for it. THAT’S POLITICS!!!

  17. “The right is forced to bring up all these examples to show the incredible hypocrisy being dispalyed by the left and the media. The difference is, no one is out there trying to get Maher & Sharpton fired. The left constantly tries to silence those who disagree with them. It’s what they do. The right highlights bias and hypocrisy. It’s what they do. They don’t go around trying to get people fired day in and day out.”

    ^^The left is forced to bring up all these examples to show the incredible hypocrisy being displayed by the right and the right wing media. The difference is, no one is out there trying to get Rush and Billo fired. The right constantly tries to silence those who disagree with them. It’s what they do. The left highlights bias and hypocrisy. It’s what they do. They don’t go around trying to get people fired day in and day out.

    Tit for tat. 😉

  18. MSNBC Has cut so much news programming to have the Lean Forward Agenda they would hire anyone who ubhears to the one side plan no matter how crazy their past was. And If you think what Limbaugh said was offensive then what Ed Shultz said last year, doesn’t matter if you like the person or not it can’t be a double standard.

  19. ^ yep, Ed’s comment about Laura Ingraham was terrible. He was wrong. He was out of bounds.

    TAT!

  20. Ya know, keeping some FACTS in a story is nice sometimes. Ed lost his cool for a minute, then apologised unequivocally the next day. Rush intentionally said the most disgusting things about that young woman for three days, then BSed a non-apology apology. Now he’s claiming a Democratic Fluke Conspiracy against him. FACT.

  21. lonestar77 Says:

    “ok, really, that is pious baloney.”

    You’re missing my point. When something like this happens, the left tries uses it as an excuse to get someone off the air. They attempt to intimidate sponsors. The right doesn’t do much of that.

    There’s a big difference between playing politics and trying to silence all opposing voices. These people on the left don’t care about debating issues, they want to completely silence those they disagree with.

  22. lonestar77 Says:

    Fritz:
    That’s neat what you did there but it’s complete nonsense.

  23. There is no equilancy. ’twas but one who ate the pie.

  24. Don’t kid yourself. Rush has had plenty of pie, square and otherwise.

  25. jackyboy Says:

    I LOVE PIE!

  26. missy5537 Says:

    fritz,

    You can “tit for tat” as much as you want, but your argument simply does not go both ways. We know for a fact that the MSM is 85% liberal and we know for a fact that libs can say whatever the hell they want, with impunity. That is simply not the case with conservatives.

  27. ^ There are no facts in that statement. It’s rightwing spin, also known as “opinion”.

  28. I prefer to see more tit, less tat.

  29. Careful or you’ll get your tat in the wringer.

  30. Missy,
    Oh, c’mon now, you are a conservative and you don’t seem to have a problem saying whatever the hell you want.

    It so goes both ways.

    TIT!!!!

  31. identcity Says:

    I think we’re all missing one key point here.

    Al Sharpton (who is african-american himself), used a word that is “supposedly” offensive to african-americans.

    Does that undermine its offensiveness?

    Where as Rush, as near as dammit, libelled a woman, on his programme.

    Al’s offense was to be borderline offensive. Rush’s offense was borderline illegal, and he could be sued.

    That’s the definition of false equivalency.

  32. […] Research Center President Brent Bozell apparently didn’t get the memo that Al Sharpton is the MSNBC target de jour for conservatives looking to get a liberal scalp after the attacks on Rush Limbaugh. Nope, our man […]

  33. borderline illegal and he could be sued

    To be “illegal” means a violation of statute for which an offender can be prosecuted. Limbaugh did not come anywhere close to breaking any laws. It is true that he can be sued civilly for his comment but in all likelihood he would win that case because, like it or not, Ms. Fluke is now a public figure so actual damages arising from Limbaugh’s name-calling would have to be proven.

    As for your larger “false equivalence” argument, if you only use that one example of Sharpton’s offences then your point would be valid.

  34. identcity Says:

    Al, in broadcasting circles, libel is regarded as illegal. It might be resolved in civil courts, but most station managers and programme directors that I’ve met, treat it as though it were illegal.

  35. Even in broadcasting, a libel must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. I doubt there’s anyone who believes that what Rush Limbaugh says is not “opinion”.

  36. Nope, Rush’s premise was that Fluke claimed “she was having all this sex” at the hearing, then teed off that ‘fact’ to libel her. She’s won’t bother with it, but she has a case.

  37. I know you’d like to think so (and it wouldn’t bother me one bit if he did have to pay out some money) but you don’t have a case just because his opinion includes incorrect facts. From his (now deleted) transcript:

    “What does it say about the college coed Susan [sic] Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a …”

    Limbaugh deserves every bad thing said about him for that but “libellous” it is not.

  38. Bull. He lied for three days about her testifying about her sexual activity. There isn’t a doubt in my mind that she could present data proving a large segment of the US population believe she testified about sex, not her friend’s illness. She has a case that she was misrepresented, then slandered based on that lie.

  39. Doesn’t matter what people believe. What matters is whether or not what he said was clearly not opinion. It clearly was opinion so that’s the end of that.

  40. You are incorrect. He lied about what she testified about. You can have an opinion of factual testimony. You can’t create the testimony, then call that creation “opinion”. He presented testimony that didn’t exist as if it did, and a quick informal poll on Twitter would tell you many people believe the creation.

  41. Actually, you can fabricate (or simply be wrong about) the testimony someone gives. Opinions are factually inaccurate all the time.

  42. It’s not all that different from the joke that you and I argued about yesterday. LOD’s joke was akin to an opinion of what Santorum’s faith means and the Rush thing is his opinion of what Ms. Fluke’s testimony means. Both examples have the potential to cause some embarrassment but neither will win anyone a money judgement.

    I suspect the newsworthiness of Ms. Fluke’s testimony turned her into a “public figure” just as Santorum is, so the burden for libel is even higher.

  43. Not taking a side, but I’d love to see a trial so that his monologue can be directly compared to her testimony. I would watch Banfield on CourtTV just to see that.

  44. ^ Bloody ‘ell yes I’d watch that!

  45. If they really want to take him down, that’s the only way. The rest is just a public version of a private activity.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: