The NY Times sends a Dittohead to interview Rush Limbaugh
By Eric Boehlert
Created Jul 9 2008 - 10:16am
In his Sunday profile [1] of right-wing talker Rush Limbaugh, New York
Times
Magazine contributor Zev Chafets set the scene by describing his visit to
Limbaugh's studio in Palm Beach, Florida. Chafets wrote that when he was
buzzed into the control room adjacent to where Limbaugh broadcasts, he was
greeted by a Limbaugh associate, a very large man wearing a beret who
"glared" at the re****ter and demanded in a deep voice, "Are you the guy
who's here to do the hit job on us?"
After holding the menacing tone for a long moment, Chafets re****ted, the
associate burst into emphatic laughter.
Get it? The joke was that Limbaugh and his inner circle despise the
liberal
media so much that they were going to give the Times writer a hard time
right from the get-go.
Fat chance.
Limbaugh had nothing to fear from the toothless tiger that came to Palm
Beach to profile one of the most controversial media figures in politics
today. The Times' resulting valentine was couched in such a creepy,
tell-me-more-Uncle-Rush vibe (he was crowned "a singular political force")
that readers could almost picture the re****ter at Limbaugh's knee, eager
to
record the next morsel of wisdom.
How squishy-soft were the practically nonexistent edges of the Times puff
piece? So supple that giddy staffers at NewsBusters were doing cartwheels
in
the halls. The right-wing media site alerted readers with an all-points
bulletin [2] moments after the Times piece was posted online: "NYT Article
on Rush -- This is NO Hit Piece." (It likes him! The New York Times really
likes him!)
For Limbaugh, the ego-stroking profile was quite an achievement: The
mighty,
and allegedly liberal, New York Times conducted what appeared to be a
lengthy, in-depth, and objective profile of Limbaugh and came away very
impressed by the titan talker. The Times, quite emphatically, provided its
editorial seal of approval to Limbaugh, complete with the flattering, Tony
Soprano-like cover photo [3].
But let's go back to that mock stare-down inside Limbaugh's control room
for
a moment. Because there was another layer of humor involved, but one that
was lost on readers -- because they weren't made aware of the fact that
the
writer who profiled Limbaugh for the Times is pretty much a Dittohead [4],
a
Limbaugh devotee. So of course there was no reason to fear a "hit job."
The
whole notion was literally laughable.
I assume Chafets' right-leaning politics explain why Limbaugh referred to
the writer as "a friend" in the article and why Limbaugh allowed Chafets
unprecedented access not only to Limbaugh's studio, but to Limbaugh's
house
("the first journalist ever to enter his home") and to his friends and his
shrink. Limbaugh granted the access because he pretty much knew exactly
what
the outcome of the profile would be (or at least what the glowing tone of
the piece would be), and he knew that Chafets wouldn't come within a
country
mile of making even a passing reference to the hate speech and unhinged
attacks that Limbaugh routinely engages in on the airwaves.
Indeed, out of the 7,700-plus words Chafets wrote about Limbaugh, I
counted
exactly two in the entire piece in which the writer quoted a Limbaugh
critic
(apparently secondhand) saying something unkind about Limbaugh's craft.
Does every Limbaugh profile need to be a hit piece? Of course not. Should
every serious Limbaugh profile at least try to convey to readers what's so
controversial about the host and what he says on his radio program? Of
course. And that's where the Times, rather obliviously, took the pratfall
with its Limbaugh article.
I understand that Beltway media players routinely play nice with Limbaugh
and his fringe brand of conservatism. Spooked by his liberal-bias charges,
the mainstream press corps has for years treated Limbaugh with undeserved
respect, worked overtime to soften his radical edges, and presented him as
simply a partisan pundit. (Time's Mark Halperin has labeled Limbaugh an
"American iconic" figure, while NBC News anchor Brian Williams fretted [5]
that Limbaugh doesn't "get the credit he is due" as a broadcaster.)
The lengthy Times profile took that trend to a whole new level, because
unlike most previous half-hearted attempts to outline, in very general
ways,
what Limbaugh says and explain why he's controversial, the Times clearly
never had any intention of shedding even the dimmest light on the content
of
Limbaugh's program. Instead, it hired a conservative writer to wistfully
dismiss Limbaugh's critics in two or three sentences. And in exchange for
playing dumb, the Times was granted unusual access to the talk-show host.
That kind of obvious quid pro quo is the type of thing that's practiced on
a
daily basis at celebrity magazines, where editors angle for access in
exchange for puff pieces. It's not journalism, and it ought to be beneath
the Times.
As I mentioned, the result was a win-win for Limbaugh. But what did the
Times get out of the cozy deal, besides a very long, dull profile in which
quotes like this were supposed to pass as insightful: "He's a liberal. I
oppose liberals. That's all that's involved here"?
That's Limbaugh, referring to the candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama.
Scintillating, no?
Elsewhere in the piece, we're told im****tant people (on the right) take
Limbaugh "seriously as a polemicist and public intellectual." So, too,
does
Chafets, who pontificated on the talker's "belief in American
exceptionalism" and toasted Limbaugh's ability to produce "funny,"
"fluent,
often clever political talk" on a daily basis and his "virtuoso"
performances.
For the Times writer, Limbaugh is much more than a talk-show host; he's an
educator: "Limbaugh entertains, but he also instructs. He provides his
listeners with news and views they can use, and he teaches them how to
employ it." (FYI: Chafets also described Limbaugh as "the first white,
Goldwater Republican soul shouter." Don't ask.)
To recap: Limbaugh's a "funny," "public intellectual" who produces
"fluent,
often clever political talk" and who also "instructs" and "teaches."
Honestly, I'm not sure how much research Chafets did on his subject
(besides
rounding up nifty quotes from Limbaugh's best buds, like Karl Rove and
Roger
Ailes), but any cursory Google search, let alone a stroll down Media
Matters' memory lane [6], would have turned up lots of instances in which
Limbaugh made news for his hateful rants.
But Chafets clearly never intended to inform readers about who Limbaugh is
and what he actually does for a living. Instead, the re****ter set out to
paint false ****traits of Limbaugh as a deep thinker as well as a powerful
GOP insider. (More on that later.)
That's why there was no mention in the very long profile about the fact
that
Limbaugh has called [7] Sen. John Kerry a "gigolo," mocked [8] Democratic
Party chief Howard Dean as "a very sick man," agreed [9] that liberal
philanthropist George Soros is a "self-hating Jew," denounced [10]
then-Sen.
Tom Daschle as an Al Qaeda sympathizer, mocked anti-war crusader Cindy
Sheehan, whose son was slain in Iraq, by teasing [11], " 'Oh, she lost her
son' -- well, yes. Yes. Yes. But you know, this is [sigh] -- aaah. We all
lose things."
Or that Limbaugh has claimed [12] Democrats "hate this country" (i.e.
"What's good for Al Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party in this country
today"); denigrated [13] members of the U.S. Armed Forces, calling
military
men and women who criticized the war in Iraq and advocated withdrawal
"phony
soldiers"; toasted [14] photos of the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib as
"good
old American ****ography"; suggested [15] actor Michael J. Fox faked
symptoms of his life-threatening illness while taping a
pro-stem-cell-research commercial; called [16] Sen. Barack Obama a
"Halfrican American"; and announced [17] Obama and Osama bin Laden are "on
the same page."
There was not even a whiff of those odious attacks in The New York Times.
Who knows? Maybe Chafets, given his clear political leanings, didn't
include
those nuggets because he didn't think the smears were particularly
controversial. Maybe Chafets agreed with all of Limbaugh's pronouncements.
It's certainly possible. Reading some of Chafets' previous work (he used
to
be a columnist for the New York Daily News), I often got the feeling that
he
was applying to be a Limbaugh ghost writer, the way he dumped all over
Democrats and cheered lustfully for a war with Iraq.
One scurrilous Chafets column [18] in particular really captured just how
far out on the Democratic-hating fringes he has operated. The column was
published less than three weeks before the 2004 election, and Chafets
relayed a story, which he had heard secondhand, about the time Sen. Kerry
made an official visit to Israel some 20 years earlier. According to
Chafets, Kerry walked away dry-eyed after visiting a Holocaust museum in
Jerusalem. When an Israeli host told Kerry that then-Sen. Al Gore had been
emotionally overwhelmed by the museum, Kerry, determined to match his
stateside "rival," asked for time alone and then allegedly returned with
tears in his eyes.
They were manufactured tears, according to the New York Times contributor
whom Rush Limbaugh now calls "friend."
Safe to say that during the 2004 campaign, Chafets did everything he could
to slime the Democratic nominee, who was nothing more than "the standard
bearer for the unbearable" and [19] a "Giant New England Slack-Jaw."
Chafets chuckled [20] at Kerry when the Swift Boat Vets spread their
smears
about his war record, and wrote [21]: "[Kerry] made a career out of being
a
proud Vietnam war hero who came home and threw away his medals."
Chafets has done lots of Dem-tra****ng in recent years. Surveying the field
of possible presidential contenders in 2004, he announced [22] that
"Florida's Bob Graham is a flake with a heart condition." John Edwards
resembled [23] a "smarmy gigolo," was "pretty close to a cipher," and
"lack[ed] even the most elementary qualifications" to be president. And
former Democratic presidential hopeful Gary Hart was remembered as "the
arrogant young senator from Colorado who lost his bid for the 1988
nomination by getting caught with his pants down."
President Bush, by contrast, was a "master politician [24]" and Rudy
Giuliani, "the Italian Stallion [25]."
And just like Limbaugh, Chafets was a loud cheerleader for the War on
Terror
[26] (i.e. Islam "is an aggressive, violent political ideology") as well
as
the Iraq war, which Chafets anticipated with a somewhat demented [27]
sense
of glee:
A lot of people feel guilty for enjoying the war. After all, some
terrible
things are happening. But worse things would happen if America failed to
rid
the world of Saddam. This time, right and might are on the same side. And
there is something undeniably enjoyable about being on the sunny side of
an
uneven struggle between good and evil.
Unfortunately, it turned out Chafets was about as accurate as Limbaugh in
his pronouncements about the Iraq war: "It's now clear that the military
has
a lid on the violence," the columnist confidently proclaimed [28] a little
more than four years ago this week.
I'm all for giving editors leeway in assigning writers for magazine cover
stories. But I can't help wondering if Times public editor [29] Clark Hoyt
ought to look at this situation and determine whether the Times has
ethical
guidelines that generally frown upon hiring, in this case, a
Democrat-ba****ng opinion writer to pen a magazine cover story about a
Democrat-ba****ng media figure without ever letting readers in on the
political alliance at play.
Journalism isn't supposed to hide perspectives and context. It's supposed
to
add them. Here, the Times deliberately did the opposite; it purposefully
duped its readers.
That said, knowing more about Chafets' background now certainly helps
explain why the whole Times Magazine piece was written in such solemn
terms,
as if the writer were being granted an audience with the great and
powerful
Rush Limbaugh: "I had come to talk to Limbaugh about his role in
Republican
Party politics."
The overall point of the piece seemed to be to do***ent how wealthy
Limbaugh
is and what a powerful force he is within the Republican Party. There's no
question Limbaugh is among the super-rich. (His new Clear Channel contract
will ensure that [30].)
But the Times' ego-stroking premise that Limbaugh pulls the strings within
the GOP remains laughable [31]. It was just a few months ago that Limbaugh
put his reputation on the line when he announced Sen. John McCain was not
a
true Republican (neither was Mike Huckabee) and that conservatives should
vote for Mitt Romney to be the party's presidential nominee.
So what did millions of Republican voters nationwide do in response to
Limbaugh's clarion call? They completely ignored him and voted for the guy
Limbaugh said was a bum.
I mean, boy, how much more influential can he get?
But for whatever reason, the Times made an editorial decision regarding
Limbaugh and paid Chafets to play dumb about the talk-show host.
Mission accomplished.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.
I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an op****tunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are
at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
|
