Word
Gems
What is a
man but the sum of his thoughts?
Deception
& Propaganda
Rush
Limbaugh:
The
Drive-By Media
Narrow Focus Defines
the Drive-By Media |
|
July
21, 2006 |
If you go back to World
War II, you'll find that what we call today the Drive-By Media was far different -- just
like Democrats back then were far different than Democrats are today. I think what I mean by it is what I was referring to just a
moment ago. The Drive-By Media, the liberal media, whatever you're going to call it,
they've always had an agenda in our lifetimes, yours and mine, and their agenda has always
been at odds with what ours is. I actually have no problem with that. It's just their
predicate that they don't have that agenda and that they're objective is what grates on
me. I mean, they're thinking, engaged human beings. The idea that they don't have a vested
interest in the outcome of events insults my intelligence. Of course they do.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: And Walter Cronkite
has made it known that he always did during the Vietnam War and so forth. But I think in
general what I mean is that their focus was at least wider. I'll give you an
example. This is probably a good way -- and I mentioned this earlier this week. I was
playing golf last weekend, and a guy asked me a question I've never been asked. He said,
"Do you have to spend a lot of money on your research?"
CALLER: (chuckles)
RUSH: I looked at him, I kind of cocked my head in wonderment, and I said, "No, I
mean myself and a couple people search the Internet. We have our sources, and we do
things, but no."
He said, "The reason I'm asking is because you've got all these networks with vast
amounts of money, and they can send reporters anywhere, and they can go anywhere. They
have no budget constraints, and I just wondered if it put you at a competitive
disadvantage," and then the light went off, and I said, "No,
not at all and I'll tell you why: because when to use 95% of what they find, learn, or see
because if it doesn't fit there are template or action line or agenda, they discard it,"
and that's the best way to explain it. They're just such a narrow focus. I guarantee you.
I mean this from the bottom of my heart. You listen to three hours of this program any
day, pick a day, and then watch three hours of cable news or watch 30 minutes of network
news, and I guarantee you, you will learn more about what's going on in the country and in
the world than you will by watching any so-called professional, national news
organization today.
It's not true about AP. If you go on and read the wire services, then you'll get a broad
spectrum because they're out covering all these wacko stories, too. They've got their Food
Network people; they've got the lifestyle clowns; they've got the environmental people. I
mean that's where we find some of this stuff. But I'm just talking about the Drive-By, the
mainstream, media. If it doesn't fit what they intend to use and
what they intend to try to cause to happen on a daily basis, they discard it, which is why
I've always said it's not just the news that they cover and the way they cover it that
contributes to the bias. It is the decision-making they engage in, in choosing what news
they think is worth reporting and what news they don't. So we paint with a much
broader brush here.
I think this program is far more educational; it is far more informative, and it's more
honest, because I don't tell you that I'm something I'm not. I don't pretend to have no
vested interest in the outcome of events. I don't tell you that, "Hey, you know, I'm
just observing this and telling you what I'm seeing." I don't do that at all, which
is what they do. So I think this is a far more honest presentation. I think it is far more
varied, in-depth. You get not only news, you get analysis -- and sometimes as a bonus,
this program will tell you how and what to think. But ultimately it's still up to you.
So I guess the best way to define it
would be it's just narrow focus. Howard Fineman, by the way, wrote a piece on MSNBC's website. He's a
Newsweek columnist, a reporter, and he said that it was in the
Vietnam War that the United States mainstream media finally realized their power as a fourth political party -- they believed. And that's
why they keep wanting to go back to those "glory days," and why they keep trying
to reconstruct this war as the Vietnam War, and this administration is Nixonian and worthy
of another Watergate-type investigation because they look back and they think, "Man,
that's when we came of age. That's when we stopped being media; that's when we stopped
being reporters and we became opinion-makers, and we became movers and shakers, and we
were able to move the American public. We became the fourth political party."
So by his own definition, you would
say that it would be mid-sixties to late-sixties when the focus of the media changed. But
I think you're right. I think you'd have to go back prior to 1960 to find a news media
that was not nearly at all like this -- and you know what's amazing about it? We have more
cable networks today; we have more magazines; we have more newspapers, and they're all
alike!
In the Drive-By Media, it's like I say: "If you miss the New York Times, no big deal,
read USA Today. If you miss that, read the Washington Post. If you miss that, read the San
Francisco Chronicle. Miss that, read the LA Times. Miss that, go out and read the Chicago
Tribune. Miss that, go read the Minneapolis Scar. Miss that, go read the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution. If you miss all that, watch CBS. If you miss that, watch NBC. Miss
that watch, ABC.
Miss that, watch CNN. If you miss that, watch MSNBC. If you miss that, watch CNN
International. If you miss that, well, you haven't missed anything!" Take your pick.
Read or watch any one of those things and it's going to be the same thing everywhere else.
|