Last week, the LA Times published an item by a fellow named Andrew Klavan that dared liberals (I call them leftists as I am a liberal in the classic sense) to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Klavan accused them of inventing many of the themes they attribute to Limbaugh and wrote that few of them listen. Today, the LA Times printed an op-ed purporting to be a reply, although it is filled with misstatements and inaccuracies. I’m not sure they ever did listen. Maybe they tuned the radio to the program, but that is not necessarily listening. For example:
First, the academic; Marc Cooper Director of Annenberg Digital News at the USC Annenberg School for Communication:
The ditto-head audience relies on Limbaugh the same way that a drunk uses a lamp post or the way a fundamentalist zealot relies on Scripture: not for illumination but rather for something to lean on.
“Call Limbaugh’s rants offensive, racist, extremist or just plain intellectually insulting, if it makes you feel better. I think it’s more useful to understand him instead as a form of religious experience, one of the more dogmatic strain. He’s a completely reliable inspiration and reinforcement for those who are embittered and battered and who confuse their natural allies for their enemies.
It is very common for these people to refer to Limbaugh’s audience as “Dittoheads.” Do they know where the term comes from ? I suspect they assume that it means the audience all agree with Limbaugh, hence “ditto.” In fact, it refers to the tendency of callers, once put on the air, to waste time telling Limbaugh how much they like his show, etc., etc. “Ditto” means, “I think you’re great but assume that as stipulated.” It has nothing to do with agreement on the topic.
The professor goes on to write:
. Like the ditto-heads themselves, I also listen to Limbaugh strictly to reinforce my preconceived views. When I am feeling most powerless, most misanthropic, most suspicious of the ability of humanity to think clearly, when I’m flooded with fears that we might be living in the twilight of the bipeds, there’s absolutely no one better than Rush Limbaugh to reaffirm my views. Thanks Rush.”
I wonder what he teaches his students, if not “preconceived ideas”?
Next, the newspaper editor, Laurie Ochoa Editor in chief, LA Weekly:
“Any real ditto-head can tell you that liberals have always been an important part of Rush Limbaugh’s audience. They may not get a lot of caller airtime — “Rush babies,” budding right-wingers with, as Limbaugh likes to put it, “perceptions beyond their years,” and flirty female conservatives will always get on the show before cranky lefties — but Limbaugh loves to lecture and tease his liberal listeners.
Once again, the insult then an inaccuracy. Liberal callers go to the head of the line and anyone who listens knows that. He will even keep them on for lengthy periods and hold the call past station breaks. She either doesn’t know this (most likely) or is lying. Two more misstatements:
Less interesting to me are the over-hyped skirmishes between Limbaugh and the Obama administration, which are mostly about ratings and political posturing. I listen for the subtler themes that worm their way into our national dialogue. It was morbidly fascinating to hear Limbaugh plant his father’s anti-FDR bias into the bailout debate. The contrarian idea that Franklin Roosevelt actually made the Great Depression worse found its traction on Limbaugh’s show and quickly spread to cable news’ talking heads.
First, I didn’t know that Obama was that concerned about ratings as it was he, not Limbaugh, who started the “skirmishes.”
Then we have the second lie or evidence of ignorance; “The contrarian idea that Franklin Roosevelt actually made the Great Depression worse .” Has she ever heard of Amity Schlaes’ book or about the UCLA economics professors study ?
I suspect that the only way people can be this ignorant, and supremely unaware of it, is if they read the LA Times every day.