“Censoring Thugs” And Other Good Americans

There is panic in Limbaugh Nation. The parching heat of exposure must be sucking the life out of the money tree.

On Wednesday, “show spokesman” (since when does anyone speak for Rush?) Brian Blicklich wrote an op-ed for Politico viciously attacking David Brock of Media Matters for daring to use the (gasp!) free market and First Amendment to call attention to the talker’s hate-filled shtick.

On the same site on Tuesday, Mr. Brock, a former right-winger himself, had written:

At Media Matters for America, we have monitored “The Rush Limbaugh Show” every day since our founding in 2004. There is no example we can recall in which Limbaugh, or any other media figure, levied attacks of the tone and duration of those leveled against Fluke.

It is for that reason that Media Matters, along with numerous other groups, have begun to educate advertisers about the damage their financial support of Limbaugh’s program can do to their brands.

For having the audacity to use his free speech right in the town square, Brock earned himself some Limbaugh-size contempt from Attila’s spokesman:

This is Brock’s cynical marketplace of ideas. He will fail, as every censoring thug has in this country. Americans are smart enough to make our own decisions about what media to consume. We don’t need self-appointed monitors. Black-list censors are some of the most reviled characters in U.S. history.

One day Media Matters will join that list as an advocacy that lost sight of its mission, which was to promulgate a point of view, in order to adopt a darker one, which was to deny that right of expression to others.

Censoring thug“? Hmm. All of this sounds very familiar to me, as I have been similarly attacked by local right-wing bloggers who believe they have an unfettered right to dump whatever shuddersome waste they want right here in my space, their own Globe-sponsored blogs not being enough “free speech” for them.

As far as Limbaugh is concerned, apparently there are people out there who believe that he has some kind of inviolable right to have advertisers support his radio show no matter what he says or does.  It’s as if the many advertisers who have abandoned his show are stepping all over his First Amendment rights because they don’t want to be associated with a buffoon who would call a college student a slut or prostitute or suggest he wants to watch her have sex on the Internet.

And obviously, since advertisers are constitutionally bound to keep supporting Limbaugh, anyone urging those advertisers to withdraw their support of his show—as David Brock and others have done in the strong tradition of peaceful protestation (see the history of Charles C. Boycott)—is a “thug.” No, uh, I mean a “censoring thug.”

The truth, though, was stated quite well by Mr. Brock:

We are not a government entity attempting to stifle Limbaugh’s speech. Instead, we are using our right of free assembly to join together and raise our voices against Limbaugh. We are, in fact, engaging in the marketplace of ideas, one in which people, examining all of the facts, can choose whether it is in their financial interest to support hate radio.

For someone to label that very American act as thuggery says a lot about how effective it has been and how much it is co$ting those who have profited wildly from marketing malevolence.

Advertisements

7 Comments

  1. Here’s a bit more “waste dumping” for you. It’s not “your” space if you’re enjoying the exposure and pay of the paper. No more is the Corner “my” space as long as I have it up there.
    Regarding the spat between Limbaugh and Media Matters:
    Let it rip. (Hmmmm where have I heard that before? Perhaps from another right wing “waster”?)
    Media Matters has every right to mount whatever campaign it want’s against Limbaugh, as he has every right to speak out about what they’re doing as well.
    The only difference at this point is Media Matters is getting taxpayer subsidy through it’s 501-c3 designation and Limbaugh’s actually PAYING taxes.

    Like

  2. ansonburlingame

     /  March 22, 2012

    Let’s see, just which “right wing bloggers” might Duane be refering to? I only know two that comment here so I suppose it is Caldwell and Burlingame, right?

    First on the censoring allegation. Neither Geoff nor I have EVER suggested th Gatraham be censored, period. Call him out for overstatements, wrong statements, misguided thinking, you name it, sure we have. But censor him, no way.

    So speaking for myself, I reject being called censorus in tone, substance or fact. In fact that I level my strongest complaints against the EC because he himself has in fact censored comments on this blog. As well he called for censoring Limbaugh on the AFN just a few weeks ago.

    Now let’s discuss “thugs”. Thugs as I regard them are people trying to use brute force or brutish behavior in overwhelming someone else’s actions or views. Thugs simply try to “roll over” any opposition.

    I would suggest telling a commenter to “shove it up their…” is pretty thugish behavior. Not much intellect involve in such behavior and it is a typical “thugish” retort to a negative view on what someone has written.

    So I offer one final question for readers herein. When does “writing polemically” cross the line to “writing like a thug”?

    Don’t you all just love how civil things have become, locally and nationally in our political debates?

    Anson

    Like

    • Read the article again… carefully.

      Like

      • ansonburlingame

         /  March 22, 2012

        Rawhide,

        I did, the first time and now again. Duane is very careful with his words but his intent, polemical and derogatory to any and all things conservative, still is there and he admitts as such.

        I read what he writes, draw my own conclusions and thus respond, carefully but forthrightly as well.

        How you “take” Duane or my comments, I leave to your the readers.

        Anson

        Like

        • From what I read, he simply suggested that “local right-wing bloggers” appear to characterize him as a “Censoring thug”. He did not accuse you, nor Caldwell, of being “Censoring thugs” the way I read things.

          Like

      • Rawhead,

        You are asking a lot. Anson has a problem with reading “carefully” anything I write.  He is from the “type-first, read carefully later” school of commentary.

        As far as my “intent,” which, I suppose, Anson believes he can divine through his powers as a former Navy commander, you got it right. I don’t know how anyone can misinterpret this paragraph:

        Censoring thug“? Hmm. All of this sounds very familiar to me, as I have been similarly attacked by local right-wing bloggers who believe they have an unfettered right to dump whatever shuddersome waste they want right here in my space, their own Globe-sponsored blogs not being enough “free speech” for them.

        Anyone who reads the comment section on this or other Globe blogs knows I was accused of censorship both for banning Caldwell for a time and for calling for Limbaugh’s ass to be removed from the AFN.  And “thug” would have been an improvement over some of the things I have been called.

        Duane

        Like

  3. ansonburlingame

     /  March 22, 2012

    I left the above retort on “censorus thugs” up for about an hour or so. I KNOW Graham will not respond but for sure I expect JANESREACTION, the real “thug” around here to have a say.

    Go ahead Jane, let me have it with some more accustations of being racist, U Boat Commander, homophobic and a few others that you have let drop over the months in your shorty and pithy comments. But as well I will for sure ignore YOU, Jane.

    Anson

    Like

%d bloggers like this: