for my money, this article nails it.......but wait, there's no such thing as media bias, right Obaaaaama???
Epilougue - Rushgate
October 19, 2009
By The Gold Sheet
By Bruce Marshall
Now that the smoke has finally cleared after the brief media firestorm that engulfed Rush Limbaugh's ill-fated attempt to be included in a group to purchase the St. Louis Rams, we almost have to chuckle. After all, it didn't take Nostradamus to figure out that any bid for the Rams involving Rush was probably going to be a non-starter. Regardless of being tolerant or intolerant of Limbaugh's viewpoints, it was easy for almost anyone to see that Rush's ongoing commentary is too incendiary and his persona too polarizing to be included in a public "club" like the NFL. Limbaugh's act works best as a one-man show, and the bottom line is that Rush was going to be a distraction that the league could live without.
(What still puzzles, however, is how a shrewd administrator such as Dave Checketts, the primary figure in the Rams/Limbaugh group, couldn't have foreseen the same thing. He wouldn't have even had to consult with Chris Matthews to figure out as much.)
But as the story extinguishes, we suspect that the enduring memory might not be Limbaugh's eventual exclusion (which really was a fait accompli) from the Checketts bid. Rather, "Rushgate" might instead be remembered as something of a demarcation point about how such touchy subjects will henceforth be covered.
Let's just say "Rushgate" was hardly journalism at its best.
Advertisement
For the record, we had no stake in the Limbaugh story other than to sit back and watch the saga unfold. But after some of the early anti-Rush salvos were fired by expected sources, the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, we decided to do a little homework and see how the nation's sportswriters and columnists were going to react. We were hardly expecting a pro-Limbaugh movement to surface, but we also weren't anticipating an almost complete abandonment of basic journalistic principles by the majority of writers and columnists who decided to comment.
The first misstep by the media was granting an audience to notorious opportunists such as Jackson and Sharpton and allowing them to frame the debate. We expected the likes of Jackson and Sharpton to react as they did. But empowering those with self-serving agendas (which, in this case, would also include new NFLPA chief DeMaurice Smith) is a definite no-no for any responsible journalist. As for the anti-Limbaugh message, we expected it to resonate far and wide, but we were still taken aback by how the majority of journalists we surveyed simply resorted to parroting what Jackson, Sharpton, and other critics had said about El Rushbo>.
Irrespective of opinions about Limbaugh (whom we know is a burr in the saddle to many), journalists can do better than base their attacks on broad generalizations and labels, as well as abandoning serious research and relying on reports of a few sound bite comments over Rush's 21 years in his current radio gig that were part of a much larger dialogue and, at least Limbaugh would argue, might have been taken out of context. Not to mention various writers allowing some discredited source like Sharpton do their bidding on the subject. Not surprisingly, most of those we surveyed quickly decided to dismiss Limbaugh as a racist and bigot.
We can't comment on those accusations because we don't know Limbaugh, but if we were to skewer El Rushbo, we'd focus on his actual, not perceived, modus operandi, that being attacks on the left, of which Rush has been consistent. We would have been pleasantly surprised if a writer had challenged on those terms instead of mimicking someone like Sharpton and reducing it to name-calling and a simple black vs. white issue. Or bothered to note that Rush's historic targets (the Clintons, Kennedys, Al Gore, Joe Biden, Tom Foley, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, etc.) all had something in common that had nothing to do with race. Rush spreads his venom far and wide, but at least it's always aimed in the same direction. Inevitably, almost all on the left get caught in his crossfire.
We'll excuse anything said by the likes of Jackson and Sharpton, who seize any chance to attach themselves to whatever news item can put their name in circulation. Journalists, however, ought to have a higher standard. Bryan Burwell of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch penned an early, widely-distributed attack on Limbaugh that included a passage that was mostly ignored by the mainstream media. Indeed, Burwell's claim of an "ultra-conservative" NFL ownership group was not only unchallenged, but became a secondary theme of sorts to many recent Rush-related stories.
Not that the owners' political views should matter a hoot, but a little more accuracy in reporting by Burwell and others would sure be appreciated. After all, the majority interest of the Rams is currently owned by the estate of an ex-burlesque dancer (Georgia Frontiere), who could hardly have been called a right winger. While Dan Rooney's support of Barack Obama (and Rooney's appointment as US Ambassador to Ireland) is acknowledged by the media, there are other NFL owners whose sentiments trend to the left as well. The McCaskeys have been close to Chicago Democrats for years; Soldier Field didn't get remodeled on its own. Redskins owner Dan Snyder (left) has supported various Democrats, as has the Eagles' Jeffrey Lurie. Do Burwell and other writers expect us to believe that the Patriots' Robert Kraft and the Vikings' Zygi Wilf and the Glazers in Tampa Bay have much in common with Limbaugh? Or does Atlanta's Arthur Blank, a noted supporter of numerous "progressive" causes? And aren't the Packers owned by many citizens in Wisconsin, hardly a bastion of right-wing ideology?
Not that any of it matters in regard to the NFL, except when it's been reported inaccurately by Burwell and others, many of whom with apparently little clue about owner history in the league. The NFL supremos have never been a collection of Little Lord Fauntleroys; indeed, the history of NFL ownership includes bookmakers, race track owners, "waste management" operators, and many others with various unsavory backgrounds and connections. Trust us, for all of his warts, Limbaugh would not have been the most objectionable character in the NFL circle of owners.
Granted, taken out of context or not, some of Limbaugh's most-infamous missteps can hardly be defended. At the same time, it would have been interesting for one sports writer to pretend to play devil's advocate for a moment and mention that there was no stauncher supporter of Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court than Limbaugh. Not to mention his well-documented support and defense of Condoleeza Rice at almost every turn. Or that a favorite of Limbaugh's "on the Hill" and a frequent guest had been Oklahoma's J.C. Watts when he served in the House. Or that one of Rush's frequent guest hosts is economist Walter Williams. Or that Rush's own popular call screener, James "Bo Snerdly" Golden, is an African-American, like the others mentioned. Limbaugh's GOP candidate of choice for the White House in 2012 is Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, hardly whom Rush's critics would expect him to endorse. We also doubt Burwell and Limbaugh's other critics realize how reluctant Rush was to endorse John McCain last November, and how he grinded often with George W. Bush.
Thankfully, "Rushgate" disappeared almost as quickly as it arrived. But while it was raging, we weren't surprised that the majority of the sports media decided to gang up on Limbaugh. After all, it was the safest path for the writers and columnists to take. We're just hoping that more substantive future stories aren't going to be covered, or avoided, in the same way.
