Double standards in politics

[Cerb]

I've been considering the fuss over the Rush Limbaugh attack directed at student Sandra Fluke.

I thought his comments were outrageous and highly inappropriate, but it really is striking me as a double standard. The president even took time to council the student in question, and there have been many calls to have the House denounce Rush Linbaugh and basically apologize for his behavior.

Why a double standard?
I think the reason I think there's a double standard is because when John "Sly" sylvester accused Lt Governor Rebecca Kleefisch of performing felatio on local talk show hosts, mocked her colon cancer, and then went on to alude to her being involved in gang bangs, there was barely a murmer in the media.

I didn't even know the story existed until someone directed me to it.

So, here is a link to the Sly story:
ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/011711_WTDY_Sly_Kleefisch_Comments.mp3

And here to Rush's insane rantings:



The questions arising:
1. Why should the house be required to denounce or comment on the actions of a private citizen?
2) Why are they not required or expected to denounce other extremist radio people who do the same?
3) Is there in fact a double standard in the media?
4) Do you think Obama called up the Lt Gov. to comfort her?

I'm sure you an already detect my opinion. This is also a bit of a rant because I'm sick and tired of the lack of civility between people.

[Markanite]

I agree with you there. I remember seeing a lot of comments about Sarah Palin and her children and being shocked that there wasn't much criticism about the comments.

[Shizensky]

I'll say first that I'm only familiar with the Rush story, and only vaguely so. I know enough to know what he said, that Obama called the woman, and that advertisers have pulled from Rush's show.

But with that limited knowledge I think the answers are still clear. One answer, avoiding the politics behind the issue, is that Sandra Fluke wasn't really a public figure except for the fact that she was going to testify in DC. Other people, like the Lt Gov and Palin, are public figures, and as sad as it is, unreasonable and disgusting things will be said about them. Just look at the tabloids.

Speaking of Palin and double standards though, I've always found it funny when she trashes people for being sexist and wanting women to fit in 'roles' but then she'll tell guys to "man up" or to "grow a pair."

Anyway, back on topic.

The most obvious reason for the double standard probably has a lot to do with television ratings. Fox News wins the cable 'news' battle in ratings, and then you have all of the other guys trailing behind. Most of the people watching the other networks probably already have very defined opinions of Fox, so any opportunity for those networks to oust the relations of that network 'needs' to be taken advantage of.

I'm not trying to turn this into a liberal/conservative battle. Both networks pull this kind of crap all of the time. They'll ignore the stories that hurt 'their people' but they'll spend tons of time on stories that hurt 'the other guys' until nobody even cares anymore. A great example is the whole Rupert Murdoc fiasco. Everyone but Fox beat the crap out of the issue until we changed the channel when they started talking about it. Fox didn't say a word about it, except to discuss whether they would talk about it during a commercial break.

These games transcend (or maybe descend?) petty politics. It's all about the ratings.

[Shizensky]

I forgot, you had talking points already

1. Why should the house be required to denounce or comment on the actions of a private citizen?
2) Why are they not required or expected to denounce other extremist radio people who do the same?
3) Is there in fact a double standard in the media?
4) Do you think Obama called up the Lt Gov. to comfort her?

1: It really shouldn't be, especially in this case. The smartest thing for the White House to do, logically and politically, is to just not say anything to Rush. If they say anything they give him ammo for probably a whole year. And really, unless he's doing something that might genuinely effect the general public, it really isn't any of their business.

2: Because the other people aren't Rush But really, I think the episode received so much attention so fast that the normal American thing happened. "Do a whole lot of crap really fast. No, don't think about it. Just do it. We'll worry about the other stuff later"

I think I answered 3 in the other post.

4: You can be 100% certain that he only called her because the Republicans are getting close to selecting their nominee. I just don't see career politicians as the type to take time out of what we're told is a ridiculously busy day just to say "Aw, did Jabba the Hutt try to make you wear a gold bikini? I'm sorry"


Edit - No similarities were meant to be implied between Limbaugh and Jabba the Hutt.

...No, seriously!

[Escanaba]

Regarding these:

1) Why should the house be required to denounce or comment on the actions of a private citizen?
2) Why are they not required or expected to denounce other extremist radio people who do the same?
3) Is there in fact a double standard in the media?
4) Do you think Obama called up the Lt Gov. to comfort her?

The House shouldn't be involved at all. The incident was essentially a matter of free speech (however tasteless) involving private citizens. I have yet to hear anyone claim that Limbaugh's comments were illegal. Interestingly enough, the free marketplace may end up imposing a greater slap at Rush because of the way so many of his sponsors have decided to put some distance from Limbaugh because of the poor public reaction to his comments. The money may hurt more than any action by the House.

Again, the House shouldn't be involved with the second situation either for the same reasons.

Of course there is a double standard in the media. Most media outlets are liberal leaning and would foam at the mouth over any similar incident. Of course, Fox would do the same if the situation was different and a conservative ox was being gored.

Obama calling Fluke was a made to order opportunity that couldn't be passed up. She wasn't attacked by any governmental agency or policital figure (by that I mean a candidate or other wannabe) so Obama was in no danger of being accused of staging political theater. He was just showing what a compassionate guy he was. Thanks, Rush, for the freebie. And no, he wouldn't have done the same for Lt. Gov., Kleeflisch because she was a public figure who shouldn't need that sort of consoling.

Having said all that, I do agree that the incident is another sordid example of the declining civility in our lives. It isn't even a situation that would be unique to the US but could be found in many other nations as well. The only difference is I don't think most countries would honor Limbaugh's free speech quite as diligently.

[Cerb]

Well, I'm not sure a public figure has the expectation to be called a tart any more than a private citizen. Bear in mind that Fluke became a public figure the second she stepped in front of the camera and became part of this story.

I originally started this as a question on whether there is unfair bias in the political arena / media. The more I think on it though that is a side issue. There probably is bias in the media but the real heart of the matter here is civility.

This is where morals can come in to the discussion of course. My parents would have been ashamed if I described a woman as a tart, even if she did have dubious moral values.
They'd have been disgusted with me if I had gone on a verbal rant at an individual in a public forum where rather than using an a debate, I stooped to a verbal assault.

That right there is the problem. I think now to get attention you must say something horrifically extreme so people get the OMG did he really just say that? Train wreck effect.

When I grew up I was told that you never discuss religion or politics in public. You have your views and they are yours. You vote in accordance with those views.
More recently it became more acceptable to discuss politics but typically the only arena we had were friends or colleagues.

Now however we have social media, and we seem to have this trend of vomiting our political, religious, and social opinions to all and sundry who happen to frequent your page.
This has now created an environment where suddenly everyone that is even a 2nd or 3rd degree contact knows what you think on a subject, and that view is transmitted instantly and can't, no matter what you try, be unsaid.

So we now have this nation where one snarky comment which you might have snickered about with your friend on the phone, is public knowledge and record.

And if you want to get someone's attention, you pull a Sly / Rush rant and boom, you've got a massive heated debate with hate speech being thrown around.

Civility and courtesy are dead.

And we've done it to ourselves.

[Shizensky]

That's a good point, Cerb. It seems like in order to be heard, people need to escalate the rhetoric. Everybody knows who Rush is, and he says a lot of stuff that, in some circles, can often be viewed as offensive. Rush isn't the end-all and he's definitely not the start of it. He's just a good example because of the recent story.

We're so used to the already increased levels of vitriol that someone needs to do something like this to get their message across. We can't just say "I don't agree with that position" anymore. Instead, someone needs to be attacked on a personal level.

You're both right. This is about way more than politics or the 'news' media. It's a sad state of affairs.

[Eist]

I think that both episodes are totally unacceptable, and should beach the little broadcasting standards that are set in this country. the difference is that Rush literally has millions of listeners with vast political power, and is indeed responsible for shaping daytime talkback radio as it is today. This Sly guy is a nobody.

Also, while deplorable, it seems Sly's comments were directed toward someone who is essentially an equal, while Rush - the juggernaut and powerful figure that he is - was directed toward someone that really does not have a voice. A vicious and horrible attack on the vulnerable from a disgusting coward of a man.

Both commentators are unhealthy to the future of this country and should be taken off the air permanently. This will only occur through poor ratings, pressure from protests, or because they breach what standards should be set for the right to broadcast. My fingers are crossed!

[Mal]

I don't think the House would be saying much but for the fact that they convened the hearing in the first place. I might have missed it, but I didn't see where anyone was requiring the House to do anything on this issue, and most of the commentary was opinions of individual members.

As to the double standard, I guess you could say that both the conservative and liberal stations/ networks have double standards. Unfortunately, truly objective reporting isn't easy to find these days.

I doubt The President called the Lt. Governor, but again, did the President hear about it?

The fact is, I didn't hear about the Sylvester story, or Sylvester himself for that matter, until I read it here. He isn't as nearly well known as Limbaugh. Limbaugh the last I knew had 13 or 14 million listeners nationwide. So it's only natural that his comments would attract so much more attention.

[Cerb]

Well let's be honest about Fluke. She stood up and threw off her anonymity as a private citizen by speaking out about a very controversial issue. You can not hope to escape attacks from extremists when you take that step and it's something everyone has to accept.

She stopped being the every day Joe when she became famous for taking a stance on the issue. She became a representative in the same way as someone who ran for office.

As for Sly - I use his story as an example of the harmful rhetoric and I have no doubt I could likely find some similar stuff from more notable figures. Heck, just watch John Stewart any given night and he'll say something obnoxious about a republican but it's okay because he is "funny". Unless you happen to think that what he says is inappropriate and as bad as anything other commentators say.

The thing is we have a definate leaning towards satire, cruel humor, and then down right offensive statements coming from both sides, but I only hear attacks on democrats or those who are pro democrat policy. Now I admit I don't watch Fox which is about the only "conservative" channel, but I think they are pretty much extremists so I want nothing to do with them either.

I fear that this is one of the major things going wrong with the American nation. Both sides are becoming increasingly hateful and it's typically over stuff which doesn't even effect their lives.

[Mal]

I agree the civility has gone out of politics. You can trace it back to the '92 Presidential Campaign. Mary Matalin for the Republicans and James Carville for the Democrats. They each dropped some megabombs on the other camp, and it's gone steadily downhill ever since.

But then Matalin and Carville got married to each other. () And they lived happily ever after, so maybe they got the laugh on the rest of us?

[Eist]

Mar 8, 2012 21:35:29 GMT -5 Cerb said:

Well let's be honest about Fluke. She stood up and threw off her anonymity as a private citizen by speaking out about a very controversial issue. You can not hope to escape attacks from extremists when you take that step and it's something everyone has to accept.

Perhaps, but it does not warrant Limbaugh’s attacks, let alone excuse them.

Mar 8, 2012 21:35:29 GMT -5 Cerb said:

Heck, just watch John Stewart any given night and he'll say something obnoxious about a republican but it's okay because he is "funny".

I do not find Jon Stewart particularly funny. Making fun of G.W. Bush knocking himself on the head repeatedly gets a little tiring; basically J.S.’s as a comedian is pretty safe. Never-the-less, he has some class, and I can guarantee that you will not find anything of the ilk that came out of Limbaugh’s mouth from J.S. He has at least a tiny bit of class. I am actually a little bewildered that you’d say this, Cerb, and challenge you to back up this claim.

Mar 8, 2012 21:35:29 GMT -5 Cerb said:

The thing is we have a definate leaning towards satire, cruel humor, and then down right offensive statements coming from both sides, but I only hear attacks on democrats or those who are pro democrat policy.

? I don't follow.

Mar 8, 2012 21:35:29 GMT -5 Cerb said:

I fear that this is one of the major things going wrong with the American nation. Both sides are becoming increasingly hateful and it's typically over stuff which doesn't even effect their lives.

Agreed!

I’m not a Democrat, but I am sure not a Republican, either. I feel that, as a matter of policy, most of the extreme rhetoric is coming from this latter party.

[Shizensky]

To me, the worst part about what Limbaugh said wasn't the actually words he used. Yeah, it was extreme hyperbole, but what's worse is that not once did he touch what she actually talked about.

Fluke spoke about the use of birth control as a method to help with medical issues. The menstrual cycle is much worse for some women than others, and in some cases women can even be forced to take time away from just about every degree of life because the symptoms can be so severe.

She wasn't saying she wanted to have sex with every guy that passed her by. She just wanted her life back. That was her testimony.

And that's where the problem is. Rush didn't seem to care an iota about the substance of the testimony but instead used a Straw Man attack to generalize her opposing views as those of a s.lut and a prostitute.

But then he said that makes the taxpayers the Pimps, so obviously he didn't know what he was talking about anyway

[Cerb]

Mar 8, 2012 22:33:18 GMT -5 Eist said:

Mar 8, 2012 21:35:29 GMT -5 Cerb said:

Well let's be honest about Fluke. She stood up and threw off her anonymity as a private citizen by speaking out about a very controversial issue. You can not hope to escape attacks from extremists when you take that step and it's something everyone has to accept.

Perhaps, but it does not warrant Limbaugh’s attacks, let alone excuse them.

Far from it. I am merely stating that she has become a public entity through her own volition. If it's okay to viciously attack other public figures, it's okay to attack her.

I think it's wrong to attack anyone be they public or private. I'm merely stating Fluke can't be described as a private citizen.

Mar 8, 2012 22:33:18 GMT -5 Eist said:

I do not find Jon Stewart particularly funny. Making fun of G.W. Bush knocking himself on the head repeatedly gets a little tiring; basically J.S.’s as a comedian is pretty safe. Never-the-less, he has some class, and I can guarantee that you will not find anything of the ilk that came out of Limbaugh’s mouth from J.S. He has at least a tiny bit of class. I am actually a little bewildered that you’d say this, Cerb, and challenge you to back up this claim.

I am stating that he (the last I watched him) spent the entire episode running down republicans. It stopped being funny and I stopped watching him. Which is the best way to exercize your rights IMO. He is not as extreme as the others, it's just a statement of the general mood that it's fine to make fun / insult individuals in today's culture. I think that's not a good thing.

Mar 8, 2012 22:33:18 GMT -5 Eist said:

I’m not a Democrat, but I am sure not a Republican, either. I feel that, as a matter of policy, most of the extreme rhetoric is coming from this latter party.

Well that's to be understood as there is a fight for the GOP seat. They have to spout rhetoric against both the incumbent and each other.

When it comes to private citizenry spouting though it's about evens. I'm just seeing more vitriolic stuff coming from the folks that are on the more liberal side. Stuff like describing conservatives as nazi's, hate mongers, facists, and neanderthals.

About the worst I've seen so far from the right (discounting nutjobs like Russ), is socialist and looney left. I despise the latter because it's just a strate insult. The former is an observation of the policies and an assessment of what seems to be the goals.

Myself? I'm borderline libertarian. I'm fiscally conservative, believe in less government with reduced legislation, and frankly leaving my neighbour alone to do whatever the heck he likes because it's none of my business.

Still that's a bit off topic.

The point is cordiality. Sure it's more boring to be polite, but at least people aren't at each other's throats.

[Mal]

Far from it. I am merely stating that she has become a public entity through her own volition. If it's okay to viciously attack other public figures, it's okay to attack her.

OK. THAT I disagree with. Being invited to address your elected officials is a far cry from seeking public office. When you are a public figure, and you have sought high office, and you are being paid with tax dollars, you are in essence sacrificing some rights to privacy and protection against slander.

As to Limbaugh, I've been as restained as I can be. But if I'm not mistaken, didn't he take a bust for carrying a bottle of Viagra that didn't belong to him on his way back from the Dominican Republic? Here's a link to the story:

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/27/national/main1753947.shtml

He talked about going to the D.R. and "having a great time. Wish I could tell you about it." Now 6 years later he's going to chastise someone else for expressing an opinion on contraception?

Look, I don't agree with her assertion that I should have to cover someone else's birth control. But if we're going to talk about double standards and Rush Limbaugh, we're not going to get very far as I find him to be a shining example of hypocrisy.

[Cerb]

I would point out that no political candidate is paid to campaign, yet they come under attack all the same. I maintain that if an individual decides to remove themselves from a private life and place themselves into the public eye, they are seeking that public attention and the results thereof.

I brought up Rush as an example of people, and more specifically the media, of operating a double standard. He's slime as I stated in my OP.

[Mal]

Mar 9, 2012 10:41:28 GMT -5 Cerb said:

I would point out that no political candidate is paid to campaign, yet they come under attack all the same. I maintain that if an individual decides to remove themselves from a private life and place themselves into the public eye, they are seeking that public attention and the results thereof.

I brought up Rush as an example of people, and more specifically the media, of operating a double standard. He's slime as I stated in my OP.

Yet the reward of a political campaign, is far greater than any reward (if there is any) for simply coming forward and expressing an opinion.

The question becomes: if you come forward to take part in the political discourse, which is something the Framers envisioned when they incorporated the First Amendment into the Constitution, should your critics be afforded protection from liability for making slanderous comments, the same way critics of public officials are?

I would contend that there is a double standard, and it exists on both sides of the spectrum. As far as Ms. Fluke is concerned, what Rush did was way out of line. But considering the source, I'm not surprised.

[Cerb]

Agreed,

Now also consider that Fluke is currently working as an activist, and I predict she will continue to do so and we'll see her run for office at some point in the future. To get involved in this fight was, in my mind, a political move.

[Monkey Islands]

I'm not sure it's a matter of a double standard insomuch as it's the big baboon saying something so vile and nasty that it makes ALL the monkeys want to throw poo at him.

[Mal]

Mar 9, 2012 12:32:42 GMT -5 Cerb said:

Agreed,

Now also consider that Fluke is currently working as an activist, and I predict she will continue to do so and we'll see her run for office at some point in the future. To get involved in this fight was, in my mind, a political move.

I disagree. There are a lot of activists out there who get involved for reasons other than politics. Not to mention, anyone with a modicum of intelligence has to realize that getting involved in this argument would absolutely torpedo any political aspirations one might have.

If Ms. Fluke thought for a second she was going to run for office at some point, I seriously doubt this is how she would have started. It just gives the opposition a veritable boatload of ammunition to use against you, and makes you too controversial for moderates (like me) and independents.

[Cerb]

Well, I'm not sure I agree, but the fact remains that she did thrust herself into the public eye.
Surely she couldn't be so naive to believe that she could preserve her anonymity by taking such a stance?

Still, I don't want to get too far off track because the fundamental point here is that whether anyone is private or public, they deserve courteous treatment by both the general public and especially the media.

It's like the whole mess of media folks have taken the working model of the national enquirer and used that as the standard for reporting going forward. Make it extreme, rabble rousing, and with as little truth as possible.

It's funny, but the real struggle here is trying to find a news report that doesn't have it's own agenda. I find it remarkable that about the most moderate in my opinion, is nightly news with Brian williams (I think it is), on MSN.

[Mal]

It's like the whole mess of media folks have taken the working model of the national enquirer and used that as the standard for reporting going forward. Make it extreme, rabble rousing, and with as little truth as possible.

It's funny, but the real struggle here is trying to find a news report that doesn't have it's own agenda.

On that I agree with you. I think that the news business underwent a fundamental shift back in 1980 when CNN gave birth to the 24 hour news cycle. And in the 80s, when the FCC stopped enforcing the Fairness Doctrine (which I always thought was an infringment on free speech), the result, in my opinion, was pressure to produce ratings.

Fast forward to the development of HTML and the web, as well as blogs, youtube, and streaming video, and the end result is an endless amount of resources for folks to get their information. Nowadays, the attitude seems to be: "who cares if what you're saying is accurate? As long as people are listening to what I have to say and I can sell air time to advertisers, that's all that matters!"

[Calanria]

Sorry to come in far after the last post, but I'd just like to make a point that sensational journalism is nothing new. Journalism has always been about selling headlines, the most telling example being the "yellow" journalism spat between Pulitzer and Hearst prior to the Spanish-American War. Hearst once said in response to one of his colleagues not finding any lead-up to a war with Spain: "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."

That's not to say that it hasn't evolved since. Malecia made an excellent point in noting the effect that the Internet has held on journalism, with the advent of YouTube and blogs. That sort of anonymity breeds boldness, and when someone is very emotional about a certain topic, it's a perfect culture for fighting words.