What is Rush Limbaugh?

An article in the Aug. 10, 2008, Sunday Des Moines Register had the headline, “20 years later, Limbaugh is still on top.”

The article, by Chuck Raasch, a political editor for Gannett News Service, seems to indicate Raasch has high respect for Rush Limbaugh, the controversial conservative radio personality.

Now, I must admit I have only listened to Limbaugh’s radio show a couple of times as I realized he’s not my cup of tea. My husband used to listen to him quite often which spurred many “discussions” around our house which usually started with him spewing forth verbiage I knew wasn’t his own. The discussion usually really got going when I inevitably said, “You’ve been listening to Rush again, haven’t you?”

The article stated, “Twenty years into what is still the most listened-to political talk show, Limbaugh still enrages, entertains and – here come the e-mail – enlightens.”

So, the question popped into my mind: what exactly is Rush Limbaugh?

Is he a political expert, a shock-jock or just a guy with a high opinion of himself and a low opinion of women?

Is he a journalist?

At this point, I conducted a limited, unscientific query – I asked my husband, “What is Rush Limbaugh?”

Still wary of Rush Limbaugh discussions, my husband carefully said, “He’s kind of a political commentator.”

I think that might be a more accurate statement than one quoted in the article from Talkers magazine publisher Michael Harrison: “Rush Limbaugh has been the leading political talk show host in America, and talk radio has been one of the leading forces in American politics…Limbaugh is to talk radio what Elvis Presley was to rock ‘n’roll.”

At least no one is calling him a journalist.

In high-resolution detail

The title of the Aug. 8 Des Moines Register (page 10A) article was “Remote-control warriors feel stress of battle, too” and it caught my eye as I was flipping through the paper.

As I started reading the article, I wondered why in the world I hadn’t heard or read anything about the information in any other journalistic forum.

With a dateline of March Air Reserve Base, Calif., it started out setting the scene of Air National Guardsmen who are based in California but feel the same battle stress as the war-front soldiers serving in Iraq.

Why so?

Because, while operating Predator drones via remote control, they watch the people they are killing die and often – at military command – the cameras stay at the kill site, assessing damage "in high-resolution detail."

This makes death much more up-close and personal than flying over and dropping bombs on a kill zone. It has resulted in the military's use of psychologists, psychiatrists and chaplains to help these soldiers face their own very intense versions of battlefield stress.

The article says, “Working in air-conditioned trailers, Predator pilots observe the field of battle through a bank of video screens and kill enemy fighters with a few computerized keystrokes. Then, after their shifts are over, they drive home and sleep in their own beds.”

Citing “that whiplash transition”, one Predator pilot described, “It is quite different, going from potentially shooting a missile, then going to your kid’s soccer game.”

Indeed some of the “pilots” and “sensor operators”, many as young as 18, have trouble leaving the images behind after they have killed people, watched them die and hung around via video cameras to see the death and damage…”in high-resolution detail.”

According to military sources quoted in the article, everyone knows the lethal nature of the “jobs” when they go into them.

But can 18-year olds, even those who grew up playing violent video games, truly understand what they will see and what the emotional and psychological repercussions will be when they realize this is not a game and they must watch another human being die as a direct result of their actions…”in high-resolution detail.”

The old warrior, William Tecumseh Sherman, said, “War is hell.”

Today, war technology is hell…”in high-resolution detail.”

Social Media

I’m wondering if any of the companies you work for are practicing “social media” or open messaging via responses to articles or blogs or any other form of interactive communication?

Here are some specific questions I have:
Is your system completely “open” – anything goes and can be posted?
Is your system monitored and censored in any way?
How is your system monitored? Who monitors it?
How has social media been beneficial to your company?
What positive and negative experiences have resulted for your company from social media?
Does your company leadership practice social media in any form?

I hear more and more companies are utilizing an open form of communication such as social media allows. I also hear the corporate world is unsure how to ensure it has a positive impact on communication and disgruntled employees don’t use it for airing their complaints.

Scribbleofthought asks “When does Freedom of Speech cross the line?” She says, “What I don't understand is why people feel the need to become disrespectful or even hurtful in their posts.”

What if that happens in the corporate world?

Does anyone have any thoughts on how to balance open communication with the need to maintain a respectful, effective corporate communication atmosphere?

News via cell phones

I just read Kelly Smith’s blog: Another Option For Getting Our News. In it, Kelly talks about the unfolding technology of receiving news via our cell phones. Like Kelly, I prefer to physically open a traditional newspaper – although I am getting more used to reading news online, thanks to this class!

However, the State of the News Media 2008: An Annual Report On American Journalism, says, “Audiences are moving toward information on demand, to media platforms and outlets that can tell them what they want to know when they want to know it.”

This conjures up scenes of panic from the 1938 radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds when many listeners were convinced New York was under a real attack by extraterrestrial aliens.

How much more quickly could a widespread hoax be perpetrated by “news” sent to millions of cell phones?

The world today is a more sophisticated, discriminating audience that is less susceptible such a possibility - right?

Scary food for thought…is the technology advancing faster than security features that would prevent such an occurrence?

Does religion have a place in the presidential race?

On a Christian radio station, I recently heard presidential candidates Obama and McCain are scheduled for back-to-back interviews about their religious faith later this month.

Unfortunately, I could not find anything about this on Google so I can’t share any details.

But the blurb I heard prompted some thoughts about religion and the presidential race.

It seems like the little I’ve heard about faith in this race has been negative such as:

- Obama’s former minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, swearing and slamming America that led to
Obama’s break with the man who had been his pastor for years.

- Rev. Jesse Jackson’s embarrassing “open mike” statements about Obama that required not
one, but two apologies from Jackson. (What’s with these prominent figures forgetting they are
wired with microphones lately?)

- During the primaries Mitt Romney had to address the issue of his membership in the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church.

- E-mail grapevine messages declared Obama was secretly a Muslim, including one photo I saw
of Obama, Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain on a stage during the national anthem – Obama
didn’t have his hand over his heart. This created the double whammy for Obama: he’s
possibly a Muslim and refuses to show patriotism, according to the e-mail.

With these incidents in mind, one can understand the reluctance on the part of the media to run articles about religion and the presidential race.

But doesn’t something as important as a candidate’s religious beliefs deserve some attention?

According to an article titled Faith in America: The Philanthropic Context by Dr. Susan Raymond (March 2006), 82% of Americans believe in God.

Have we become so accustomed to the concept of the separation of church and state that discussions of faith are regarded as taboo or "politically incorrect"?

Looking at a 16-month timeframe during the primaries, from January 2007 through April 2008, the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life tracked coverage of religion. Their findings were “…despite the attention paid to Obama’s former pastor, questions about McCain’s relationship with his party’s conservative religious base, interest in Mitt Romney’s membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the surprisingly strong campaign of former Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee, only 2% of the campaign stories directly focused on religion.”

The comments on this information included the point that even when religion was covered, the stories were about the strategic campaign use of religion rather than religion itself.

For those of us for who believe faith shapes values, a candidate’s religious beliefs are of interest to a greater degree than the media’s gingerly coverage.

Setting the bar?

On the Journalism.org Web site (FYI: notice Web is capitalized – this is one of those style guidelines I had to tape on my computer to remind myself of as it just doesn't seem necessary!), there is an article about "The Daily Show."

In 2007, according to the article, Americans were asked to name journalists they admired; Jon Stewart placed fourth along with real anchormen Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather.

Note to Americans: Stewart is a comedian, not a journalist.

Note to American journalists and media: This satirical comedy show may have set a new bar for news coverage.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism asked, "What is Stewart doing on his program, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, that might cause people to consider him a journalist?"

Comparing the contents of the show to traditional media, the PEJ's answers were:
1. The show focuses heavily on politics and ignores other news entirely, similarly to cable news
shows and talk radio.
2. They use news footage in a documentary (but often satirical) manner "blending facts and
fantasy in a way that no news program hopefully ever would."
3. The show assumes and requires viewer's have a previous and significant knowledge of news…
in order for viewers to "get the joke."

Hmmmm, just mull those over for a minute. Do the people who credit the show as serious journalism really get the joke?

The article states, "According to a survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in April 2007, 16% of Americans said they regularly watched The Daily Show or the Comedy Central spin-off, the Colbert Report. Those numbers are comparable to some major news programs. For instance, 17% said they regularly watched Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, and 14% watched PBS’ NewsHour with Jim Lehrer regularly."

Now, before we get too upset about the fact that as many people watch The Daily Show as watch NewsHour, their survey "also suggests Daily Show viewers are highly informed, an indication that The Daily Show is not their lone source of news. Regular viewers of The Daily Show and the Colbert Report were most likely to score in the highest percentile on knowledge of current affairs."

Well, I guess if blending news and comedy does get people watching the news, it can't be all bad – right? Maybe nightly news programs should get the message and make the news more fun.

Where have all the women gone?

Have you noticed the lack of coverage of women in the political arena lately?

Since Hillary dropped out of the presidential race, there are no women to been seen or heard.

Where did they go?

It’s back to “it’s all about the men”, politics-as-usual.

There’s not even any coverage of the candidates’ wives!

I have seen video of an interview with Jacqueline Kennedy – black and white footage of the beautiful, young, breathless First Lady. I remember many women being enthralled with Jackie and her children. They wanted to see what she was wearing and hear her talk about the White House. That was the feminine side of politics back then.

So, what is the feminine side of politics today?

It’s supposed to be more gender-friendly, with women actively involved and serving as senators and even running for president. But what’s the last thing you remember hearing about a woman involved in politics?

Where are Michelle Obama (I think she doubles as Condoleezza Rice!) and Cindy McCain?

Where the heck is Hillary?

Good heavens – is there a Stepford Wives thing going on?