Comments on: Limbaugh rejects an apology for Revkin http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/29/limbaugh-goes-out-of-his-way-to-reject-an-apology-for-revkin/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:20:30 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Richard Pauli http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/29/limbaugh-goes-out-of-his-way-to-reject-an-apology-for-revkin/#comment-172387 Richard Pauli Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:21:47 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=13372#comment-172387 One way to render him inconsequential is to ignore him.. This squabble by media players is not serving us well.. Physical threats should be met by a healthy justice system.. Media duels are just media content. A fat drug addict who now survives by being in the public eye, must keep working it constantly... This specific issue is less important than keeping the listener emotions flowing around any controversy... Without such publicity, he will wither away. One way to render him inconsequential is to ignore him.. This squabble by media players is not serving us well.. Physical threats should be met by a healthy justice system.. Media duels are just media content.

A fat drug addict who now survives by being in the public eye, must keep working it constantly… This specific issue is less important than keeping the listener emotions flowing around any controversy… Without such publicity, he will wither away.

]]> By: Greg http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/29/limbaugh-goes-out-of-his-way-to-reject-an-apology-for-revkin/#comment-172308 Greg Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:41:12 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=13372#comment-172308 The issue isn't about Rush, it's about how many miles and what type of vehicle does this guy and his family drive eating up lots and lots of carbon? Gasoline is made from carbon....duh! Does he walk to work? What is he doing to preserve resoures..I'd like to know. The issue isn’t about Rush, it’s about how many miles and what type of vehicle does this guy and his family drive eating up lots and lots of carbon? Gasoline is made from carbon….duh! Does he walk to work? What is he doing to preserve resoures..I’d like to know.

]]> By: Jeff Huggins http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/29/limbaugh-goes-out-of-his-way-to-reject-an-apology-for-revkin/#comment-172246 Jeff Huggins Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:18:02 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=13372#comment-172246 I agree: Shame on Rush. There's no question about that. But or and, I'd also like to ask whether The New York Times owes society a big apology, unless it begins to get its own act together. For example, I don't think that The Times has yet covered (and certainly not prominently) the remarkable letter that eighteen scientific organizations issued and sent to U.S. Senators about a week ago today. Even in these times when the media cover, and know, the fact that public understanding of climate change is not nearly what it should be, and the media often point out excuses why this almost "must" be the case, according to them (after all, it's the public who is dumb?!), The Times doesn't even cover the matter when eighteen leading scientific organizations speak out with one clear, brief, understandable voice. Is the public dumb, or is The Times negligent, or worse? And then we have The Times acting, in effect, as the unchecked mouthpiece of ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil, as we know, often puts advertorials on the front page of The Times, and sometimes also runs full two-page spreads, spreading its stuff, partial claims, confusions, and so forth. YET, The Times never lifts a finger to give readers the straight scoop on those matters, to provide the missing context, or to directly examine those claims and what ExxonMobil is and isn't doing. Is if REALLY news that Rush blathers about and critiques people? It's unfortunate that he does, but is that what we should be focused on? Why don't we ask Andy and his editor, Erica Goode (I think that's her name), why The Times hasn't covered the letter from the AAAS, the ACS, and the other sixteen scientific organizations? Why don't we ask them, and Bill Keller, why The Times is letting ExxonMobil get away with so much ___ (fill in whatever word you like)? Aren't those sorts of things where the focus should be? Cheers, Jeff I agree: Shame on Rush. There’s no question about that.

But or and, I’d also like to ask whether The New York Times owes society a big apology, unless it begins to get its own act together.

For example, I don’t think that The Times has yet covered (and certainly not prominently) the remarkable letter that eighteen scientific organizations issued and sent to U.S. Senators about a week ago today. Even in these times when the media cover, and know, the fact that public understanding of climate change is not nearly what it should be, and the media often point out excuses why this almost “must” be the case, according to them (after all, it’s the public who is dumb?!), The Times doesn’t even cover the matter when eighteen leading scientific organizations speak out with one clear, brief, understandable voice.

Is the public dumb, or is The Times negligent, or worse?

And then we have The Times acting, in effect, as the unchecked mouthpiece of ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil, as we know, often puts advertorials on the front page of The Times, and sometimes also runs full two-page spreads, spreading its stuff, partial claims, confusions, and so forth. YET, The Times never lifts a finger to give readers the straight scoop on those matters, to provide the missing context, or to directly examine those claims and what ExxonMobil is and isn’t doing.

Is if REALLY news that Rush blathers about and critiques people? It’s unfortunate that he does, but is that what we should be focused on?

Why don’t we ask Andy and his editor, Erica Goode (I think that’s her name), why The Times hasn’t covered the letter from the AAAS, the ACS, and the other sixteen scientific organizations? Why don’t we ask them, and Bill Keller, why The Times is letting ExxonMobil get away with so much ___ (fill in whatever word you like)?

Aren’t those sorts of things where the focus should be?

Cheers,

Jeff

]]> By: Leland Palmer http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/29/limbaugh-goes-out-of-his-way-to-reject-an-apology-for-revkin/#comment-172227 Leland Palmer Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:39:23 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=13372#comment-172227 Oh, he's not paid to have any shame. There's not one line in his 400 million dollar contract about shame. Ratings, now- he's paid for ratings. So, of course he doubles down, because that's the controversial thing to do, and controversy is what he gets paid for. It's constantly amazing to me that the dittoheads are so willing to buy the products he advertises on his show, and so are willing to pay for their own mental enslavement. Oh, he’s not paid to have any shame.

There’s not one line in his 400 million dollar contract about shame.

Ratings, now- he’s paid for ratings.

So, of course he doubles down, because that’s the controversial thing to do, and controversy is what he gets paid for.

It’s constantly amazing to me that the dittoheads are so willing to buy the products he advertises on his show, and so are willing to pay for their own mental enslavement.

]]>