Why won't Rush apologize?

@jerzgirl (8013)
Gloucester City, New Jersey
October 26, 2009 1:03am CST
Rush Limbaugh recently spread information over his show that turned out to be false - something that was originally posted as satire, but that was shared by someone else who didn't notice that it was tagged as such. The inimitable Rush found the second article, accepted it as Gospel (most likely because it fed into his and his listeners belief systems), and shared it as fact on his show. The poster of the second article has since apologized for posting it as fact saying that he hadn't noticed the tags identifying it as satire. Thumbs up to that gentleman for acknowledging his mistake. Rush, however, chose to refuse to apologize saying that the article may have been satire but that it was how Obama really was, so no apology was needed. HUH????? No need to apologize for broadcasting admittedly false information as fact simply because the broadcaster believes it to be true anyway? http://news.aol.com/article/limbaugh-falls-for-obama-thesis-hoax/735565 I may not like Rush, but if he had said, "I should have vetted the article before reporting it; I was wrong to report it as fact, even if I believe it to be substantially true", I could respect that action from him. It would still keep his belief up front, while acknowledging that he knew he hadn't done good research on the information. But, Rush refuses to apologize for making such an announcement, even when it was found to have been a piece of satire rather than actual news. In my mind, it all comes back to "the ends justifies the means". People listened to the original broadcast and believed it. These people statistically only listen to news broadcasts that lean to the right, so they were unlikely to hear that Rush had used an article of satire in error. There was also a good chance that those who listened to the morning show wouldn't hear his statement about it being satire, one that he immediately followed with a disclaimer that "we know he (Obama) thinks it." The damage had already been done. So again, why can't he apologize for erroneously using a piece of satire as valid news? It's not that difficult. It's not going to change how one believes - and it might even bring respect from others where there is none now. His behavior reminds me of my father's who after learning that he had beaten me up (his drinking made him black out afterwards and not remember) said, well - you must have done something to deserve it. I see it as symptomatic of an abusive personality who refuses to accept any responsibility for their actions. I know those devoted to the right side of the political spectrum won't agree with my assessment, but can you see why this bothers me? Do any of you agree that it IS possible for someone to apologize for making a mistake without losing their standing within their following? Or without denying their beliefs?
3 people like this
11 responses
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
26 Oct 09
"Rush... chose to refuse to apologize saying that the article may have been satire but that it was how Obama really was, so no apology was needed." Rush admitted the article was a satire, but since he also believes it to be true, why should he apologize? Why should he apologize for speaking the truth?
1 person likes this
@jerzgirl (8013)
• Gloucester City, New Jersey
26 Oct 09
Believing something to be true doesn't make it true.
1 person likes this
• United States
26 Oct 09
Repeating things over and over doesn't make them true either, but one could never tell that in today's world..
@Netsbridge (3242)
• United States
27 Oct 09
You must remember that Rush is both entertainer and propagandist for the republican party. Anything that entertains his bunch is, according to them, good entertainment. Let me also seize this opportunity to express my disagreemnet with the dicision reached by the NFL owners regarding Rush Limbaugh: I believe that it is wrong to judge one's qualification for ownership based on his/her political beliefs. While I am aware that most of our conservative sites will prevent people from posting opinions that contradicts their ideas, such trend should never be extended to the onwership of a company. I wonder how many folks will still be owners of companies if their political ideologies were made public.
@Maggiepie (7821)
• United States
29 Oct 09
[b]Rush is not & never has been a representative of the Republican party! He is first & foremost a CONSERVATIVE, which breed is in all parties except the Socialist & the Green parties. Fewer & fewer Republicans are real Conservatives, being RINOs (Republican In Name Only), & Rush has railed against them all! This malarkey about him being a GOP shill can only be propaganda from those who hate him, & rarely if ever listen. One more thing. You &--others here--call us "brainwashed" to "believe" in Rush. Reality check: We don't "believe in" anyone but God. Did you think Rush was our sole source for news? Well hear this: He's NOT. Furthermore, he documents those items on which he reports & comments--unlike such sources as the NYT or The Daily Kos. We also know that the Left is trying hard to kill off his program, & lock out Conservatives from the internet. If they manage it, you can kiss the rest of the embattled Constitution goodbye. So love him or hate him, you'd better thank God his show--& the internet--are still allowed to function! Maggiepie "OBAMA IS AN 'UNDOCUMENTED WORKER.'"[/b]
@Latrivia (2889)
• United States
26 Oct 09
Rollo already pointed this out, but it bears repeating. He did admit the possibility of the document being wrong. We have to consider, however, that this IS Rush Limbaugh we're talking about - you're not getting an apology out of him that easily. I'm surprised he said as much as he did. This is why I always tell people to fact check your sources. Like the fake Kenyan birth certificates against Obama, and whatever other little pieces of info some people happen to drop on the right-wing to watch them make fools of themselves, this is simply one of them.
1 person likes this
@jerzgirl (8013)
• Gloucester City, New Jersey
26 Oct 09
Even our local FOX news show seemed to be somewhat unhappy that he ran with the story while they talked about it this morning. If he had just said he shouldn't have run with the story without vetting it it would have been better than saying so what if it's satire.
1 person likes this
• United States
28 Oct 09
If Rush is not sorry for his remarks, why should be apologize?
1 person likes this
@nzinky (822)
• United States
27 Oct 09
I don't think that he should apologize just because someone says something about that fool other people think the should just because Obama is the anninoted one..How many time has Obama made remarks about people and never said he was sorry. Like the time he said the Cops were wrong because his friend was actting like a real jerk........If I was Rush neither would I apologize too him....He doesn't deserve one because so much of the time he has run down the country....I think that the American people should Impeach him cause he's stupid... Way to go Rush.......
@matersfish (6311)
• United States
26 Oct 09
Well, maybe I'm misreading what you're saying here, but I don't think that this sort of thing is indicative of the "right" or Rush or Rush listeners. People error in general, sometimes knowingly, willing and unapologetically. It's a trait of mankind, not that of a "side." How many ran wild with Dan Rather's false documents when he and his producer and his network attempted to knowingly sabotage President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign? And this is CBS -- not talk radio. To Rather's credit, he did attempt to offer a loosely justified apology. Not to Bush, mind you, but to CBS's audience. He didn't want to "lose their trust." It only took him a few weeks of standing behind the lie to do so. Maybe Rush will eventually come around. I think he should. I'm all for the freedom of speech, but that shouldn't include blatantly lying about someone. That's libel. Of course, all I know of the story is what I'm reading from you. I can't get the link to load in my browser, and when it comes to Rush, I'd rather actually work than to listen to any zealot, right or left or mid middle, go on and on and on and on and on for hours. It's depressing. Rush represents (don't misinterpret the word) and speaks for, in part, a very large part of the country that is completely and utterly shunned by mainstream "big city" society. To average folks in middle America, the mainstream puts a huge emphasis on the coasts and on progressive ideology and goes out of its way to rub middle America's nose in sh1t for simply being who they are: by and large traditionalists who work hard, pay their taxes, and want to be left alone. If he's lying on the air, then I think he owes them better than that. If they're to be made fools of, they may as well all give up talk radio and watch Garofalo or MSNBC.
@jerzgirl (8013)
• Gloucester City, New Jersey
26 Oct 09
Although I do realize the refusal to apologize can happen with anyone of any political leaning, I did mention the right since Limbaugh's influence is so heavy in that area. As for Dan Rather - they heavily vetted those documents and found no reason to believe they were false. Rather's apology was forced on him by CBS after being "investigated" by a team of pro-Bush heavies and threatened with sanctions if they didn't rein Rather in. I have read books written by people involved in that story (assuming you're referring to the Bush AF Reserve story) and they presented each step they took to be certain there was no falsification of documents involved. But, the Bush administration had a heavy hand over the media and the media was afraid of retribution. I'm not saying that the media is always right, but neither are they always wrong. I'm considered a liberal, yet I count myself among those who wishes government would butt out and leave me be in my own home. I believe that all too often we roll over and cry "save me" thus giving more authority to officials who should never have the authority in the first place. I do believe that happened to an extreme during the Bush administration. At any rate - I'm not discussing those philosophies and probably shouldn't touch on them at all. My concern was Rush's refusal to admit he was wrong to not vet the article before spouting it as truth and the reasons I felt he felt no compulsion to so do.
1 person likes this
@jerzgirl (8013)
• Gloucester City, New Jersey
26 Oct 09
By the way, I did mention my father's actions and how I could relate Rush's behavior to his as being abusive. My father was not a right winger - he was a true blue Dem of the Roosevelt days. So, you can see that the behavior to which I referred was not biased politically - only my opinions of Limbaugh individually.
1 person likes this
• United States
26 Oct 09
Okay. I just wasn't sure if you were trying to associate lying with "right wing" or just saying he should apologize for being a liar in general. :P I do think that any personality such as Rush, regardless of their field or side of the fence, should apologize if they give false information to the public.
@Rollo1 (16689)
• Boston, Massachusetts
26 Oct 09
I always like to go to the source, and in this case it's the actual transcript of the show where Rush read the paper that Obama supposedly wrote. Here's some of it, edited only for space considerations: RUSH: "In the first hour of this program, I cited a statement that Michael Ledeen found on the blog Jumping in Pools reporting on Obama's college thesis written when he was at Columbia... Now, I got a note from a researcher who has been scouring the Internet, and the note says this: "Rush Limbaugh: Mini-warning on these quotes." Because the paper that Obama wrote, "Aristocracy Reborn," the first ten pages were all that reporter Joe Klein was permitted to see; and it says here that Klein did write about it for TIME Magazine. A researcher has been scouring the Internet and can't find any sources for the quote. So we have to hold out the possibility that this is not accurate. However, I have had this happen to me recently. I have had quotes attributed to me that were made up, and when it was pointed out to the media that the quotes were made up, they said, "It doesn't matter! We know Limbaugh thinks it anyway." Sort of like Dan Rather said, "I don't care if these documents are forged. I know that Bush did what he did at the National Guard. I don't care if the documents are forged." I don't care if the Limbaugh quotes are made up. So, I can say, "I don't care if these quotes are made up. I know Obama thinks it. You know why I know Obama thinks it? Because I've heard him say it." Not about the Constitution, but about the Supreme Court. Again, 2001, FM radio station interview in Chicago when he was a state senator in Illinois. " So even during the broadcast in which he read this paper, Rush stated that his staff was researching it and they weren't sure it was for real. I think that's fair enough. I don't think he could have announced that it was suspect prior to getting this information. What should he have done then? Find all the listeners who tuned out before the second half of the show? I do think he should have had the research done before he read it on air, just as those networks who reported the lies about him should have done. Apparently all news reporters now get to say anything, even if it can't be proved. I also think he believes that Obama believes what was in the phony paper and I do too, having heard Obama's views on the Constitution from his own mouth. So Rush has admitted he was fooled but has not apologized for his opinion of Barack Obama. I am not going to apologize for my opinion of Obama, either. What is anyone going to do about that? Call the thought police?
• United States
26 Oct 09
Ah, now my opinion changes on it. From how it was presented and how it actually happened, it appears as if Rush was trying a little goose/gander bit. And it also seems as if some are all too willing to take that bait. I still don't know what it's all about. But having someone say, basically, "They do it to me, so take this!" puts it in a different light. I think instead of Sherlock's famously (misattributed) quoted line being "Elementary, my dear Watson," it should have been, "Context, Watson. Context."
1 person likes this
@Maggiepie (7821)
• United States
29 Oct 09
[b]Bravo, Maters (or if you're a fe-type-male, brava!). I was about to send similar comments in, & then, there you said it all for me. That is indeed what went on. But some who don't listen TO Rush, but merely listen to what people who hate him say about him, just keep sprediong the errors. Typical. But I thought you, Jerzgirl, were more even-handed than that. Thanks, too, Rollo, for sending the transcript. Enlightening, Jerz, don't you think? Maggiepie "OBAMA IS AN 'UNDOCUMENTED WORKER.'"[/b]
@artistry (4154)
• United States
27 Oct 09
...Hi jerzgirl, Mr Rush won't apologize because it is not in his DNA. He is Mr. Right, pun intended. He will not apologize because he said something about Obama, that turned out not to be exactly as he laid it out, no matter how his loyal fans slice it. Be that as it may, the man gets paid $400 million, to sit his pompous behind there, and spew out, in the name of freedom of speech I must add, all kinds of rubbish, which those who love him just absorb and become more, his pushers of Rush's guile and belligerence everyday. One day maybe there will be deliverance. Take care.
• United States
27 Oct 09
Amen brother...
• United States
27 Oct 09
Rush is the biggest boob in the universe. Don't know why anyone would want to listen to him and his psycho babble. Does not surprise me that his big fat ego will not even allow him to apologize.
@snowy22315 (47016)
• United States
27 Oct 09
because in my opinion, he is a bigot and an idiot. I wouldnt expect anything different from that guy. He has a big ego also. He probably thinks he hasnt done anything wrong. That would be typical Rush as far as I am concerned.
@anniepa (27236)
• United States
26 Oct 09
Rush APOLOGIZE??? Don't you know that apologizing is BENEATH him...lol? All through the years that I listened to his show every day while I delivered mail that's what he did - misquoted people or took them out of context and his favorite thing was claiming to "know" what the "evil liberals" were REALLY thinking and what their TRUE goals were. His most die-hard, rabid fans don't recognize satire because they're hoping to hear the worst things possible about their perceived enemies. It's a shame that during the drama over his attempt to buy the Rams that some people felt the need to make claims of quotes he'd said that they couldn't substantiate! There was more than enough on tape and definitively confirmed without using anything in the least bit questionable and in so doing they only gave him an excuse to play the same games, knowing there would be those who would fall for any crap he'd say! Annie