Limbaugh V Fox

[rambot]

Has anyone seen any of this "Limbaugh v Michael J Fox" fiasco?

I ask b/c I'm in S.Korea so I can't really say how well known this whole issue is.

To put it simply, Fox had recorded an advertisement for the Dem. in Missouri who supports stem cell research (which would benefit Parkinsons' sufferes [Fox's disease]). Fox was quite twitchy.

Limbaugh called Fox out and suggested that Fox was "faking it" or that he "didn't take his medication" in order exaggerate his condition.

Of course, this was an outrageous lie.

Michael Fox handled it with poise, and grace. Kudos to Mike.

Now, I have put this in the Ethics and Morality thread because I want the answer to these questions:
In what way are people held to account?
How easy is it to lie in a situation like this? Could you do it?
How important is "telling the truth" when it comes to the jobs of radio pundits with obvious biases?
Is it morally okay for them to simply LIE? If they (pundits) present something as simply "their opinion" can it be considered a "lie"? Or are they simply wrong?
Generally what is the moral difference between telling a "lie" and giving your opinion when it is proven to be false?

Specifically, do you think that what Rush said, is a "lie" or simply a false opinion?

Do you consider what he said to be acceptable or offensive to your ethical sensibilities?
Rush's talky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4yK0JrHfAA&NR


I can't find Michael J's Rebut, but there is an interview with Katie Curic where he is STINKING up the place with his class...

 

[JGG]

Has anyone seen any of this "Limbaugh v Michael J Fox" fiasco?

I ask b/c I'm in S.Korea so I can't really say how well known this whole issue is.

To put it simply, Fox had recorded an advertisement for the Dem. in Missouri who supports stem cell research (which would benefit Parkinsons' sufferes [Fox's disease]). Fox was quite twitchy.

Limbaugh called Fox out and suggested that Fox was "faking it" or that he "didn't take his medication" in order exaggerate his condition.

Of course, this was an outrageous lie.

Michael Fox handled it with poise, and grace. Kudos to Mike.

Now, I have put this in the Ethics and Morality thread because I want the answer to these questions:
In what way are people held to account?
How easy is it to lie in a situation like this? Could you do it?
How important is "telling the truth" when it comes to the jobs of radio pundits with obvious biases?
Is it morally okay for them to simply LIE? If they (pundits) present something as simply "their opinion" can it be considered a "lie"? Or are they simply wrong?
Generally what is the moral difference between telling a "lie" and giving your opinion when it is proven to be false?

Specifically, do you think that what Rush said, is a "lie" or simply a false opinion?

Do you consider what he said to be acceptable or offensive to your ethical sensibilities?
Rush's talky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4yK0JrHfAA&NR


I can't find Michael J's Rebut, but there is an interview with Katie Curic where he is STINKING up the place with his class...

Rush is just playing the rather small political chip that he has...Either way he looks bad: He's either lying about his opinion for political gain and despicable, or just stupid and despicable. Quite the choice. He would have been better to say nothing at all, but that's the problem with radio: nobody can see you when you're biting your tongue. To be fair, he's being paid to attack the left, and there aren't many angles that you can attack Fox from.

 

[Merlin]

Fortunately, I was listening to Rush at the time.
∙ Fox has admitted he goes off meds to make his point.
∙ Fox was not truthful in his political ad.
∙ The Govt. has not banned stem cell research as he has claimed/
∙ The Dem. he is supporting has voted to ban such research.

Limbaugh called Fox out and suggested that Fox was "faking it" or that he "didn't take his medication" in order exaggerate his condition.

Of course, this was an outrageous lie.

No, this is something Fox has admitted to. Read Fox's book!
∙ When anyone enters the public arena politically, it's open season on their politics (Guaranteed by the constitution)

Generally what is the moral difference between telling a "lie" and giving your opinion when it is proven to be false?

Good question.
Is it morally right for Fox to lie?

Specifically, do you think that what Rush said, is a "lie" or simply a false opinion?

Or maybe true?

Do you consider what he said to be acceptable or offensive to your ethical sensibilities?

Acceptable, since Fox was politicizing the issue.

 

[JGG]

Fortunately, I was listening to Rush at the time.

∙ Fox has admitted he goes off meds to make his point.

And what do you think that point is? That Parkinsons causes tremors? That fiend!

∙ Fox was not truthful in his political ad.

Ummmm....howso?

[The Govt. has not banned stem cell research as he has claimed.

No but there's an amendment in Missouri which is trying to ban it. By the way, the ad airs in Missouri.

∙ The Dem. he is supporting has voted to ban such research.

When was that? Claire McCaskill is challenging for the senate seat. How did she manage to vote already? Is it like premptive voting in the senate now?

No, this is something Fox has admitted to. Read Fox's book!

He's written a book since Monday? Impressive. I vote for Mikey Fox just for being able to publish a book in a week!

∙ ∙ When anyone enters the public arena politically, it's open season on their politics (Guaranteed by the constitution)

Yeah, but I've never hounded Rush on his drug problem, but I should feel free to now? Rush is an addict!

Acceptable, since Fox was politicizing the issue.

[/quote]

Fox politicized a political issue? The fiend!

 

[seebs]

Er, uhm.

The tremors are caused by the medication; the unmedicated state is immobility.

I don't think there's anything at all dishonest about portraying a disease as it normally affects people, rather than trying to cherry-pick for the least effect it can have to make it look harmless.

Limbaugh said it was "purely an act". That's not just exaggeration.

Limbaugh is not a serious commentator. Come on, think about it; all his rants about druggies, and what's he doing? He's addicted to pain meds he can't legally have. Huh.

The mystery is that there are so many people who immediately spot that Franken just says whatever will sell books and make news, who think that Rush is somehow honest. (Or, for that matter, people who immediately spot that Limbaugh just says whatever will sell books, and think that Franken is somehow honest.)

People who are in the business of making news and being famous do not have a particular reason to tell the truth; in their line, any publicity is good publicity.

 

[Merlin]

Limbaugh said it was "purely an act". That's not just exaggeration.

That's out of context.

 

[bammertheblue]

[/size][/font]
That's out of context.

I watched the clip of Rush recording...it's totally in context. I don't have a transcript available right now, but he said something along the lines of "He either didn't take his meds [which is incorrect, the side effects of the meds are the tremors. If he didn't take the meds the result would be stiffness and immobility] or he was faking or exaggerating". He was also pretty much mocking the way Fox moved in the ads, which is just low.

I liked Fox before, as an actor, but he's really got my respect now for the classy way he responded to Rush.

 

[seebs]

[/SIZE][/FONT]
That's out of context.

No, it isn't. It's a full sentence, in plain English, which is false. Even if the symptoms had been "exaggerated" (and they weren't, according to people I know who actually work with Parkinson's and thus have some idea what they're talking about), they were not "purely an act".

Limbaugh's remarks were either a stunt or a sign of such genuine callousness and willful ignorance as to make me cringe. I don't know whether he's habitually unwilling to do even the most cursory examination of an issue before talking about it, or whether he lies intentionally. I do know that he spews hatred and nonsense, and that this is, all things considered, merely a slightly worse example than usual.

Just look at what he says about druggies, and look at what he did with pain meds. That pretty much answers everything you need to know about him.

 

[Merlin]

I watched the clip of Rush recording...it's totally in context.

"Purely an act"
is a partial sentence and out of context.

 

[seebs]

"Purely an act"
is a partial sentence and out of context.

The full sentence is "He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act", and the context is Limbaugh asserting that Fox's symptoms are faked or a result of not taking medication. In fact, they are a result of taking medication, and they are the normal state of life for Parkinson's sufferers; the surprising thing isn't that he's got symptoms, it's how very mild they are for someone who's had the disease as long as he has.

The only context omitted by quoting part of that sentence is the factual description of the symptoms usual for medication for Parkinson's.

The assertion is that the "moving and shaking" are an act, and that assertion is false; worse, it's false in a way that even a very casual review of the disease would correct.

It was either negligent or lying, and either way it was cruel.

 

[bammertheblue]

"Purely an act"
is a partial sentence and out of context.

That's not what taken out of context means. Someone taking something out of context would be if I were talking to a friend about how I'm so annoyed with my roommate not replacing the toilet paper when he uses the last of it, and I say "It makes me want to kill him" and someone passing by thinks that I am actually going to murder my roommate. That's out of context. This is not.

 

[rambot]

wow....a real live conservative on this website....
Someone who agrees with RUSH LIMBAUGH no less!!!!

What a glorious day.

And so, for the people who have posted here already (I want to apologize, I can't believe that the shaking incident was an issue at ALL), I wonder if you could answer my question:

If you are giving your opinion, can it be called a lie? Generally or specifically?
Could you call Limbaugh a liar OR would you have to keep with an ignorant [wash my mouth]er?

 

[TheBellman]

That's not what taken out of context means. Someone taking something out of context would be if I were talking to a friend about how I'm so annoyed with my roommate not replacing the toilet paper when he uses the last of it, and I say "It makes me want to kill him" and someone passing by thinks that I am actually going to murder my roommate. That's out of context. This is not.

Sorry, but this IS out of context. Merlin's right in that. Context is what surrounds something. Anytime you quote somebody, you do so out of context. It's unavoidable. However, that doesn't make it bad or wrong.

The problem is that people say 'out of context' as if this means that the quote doesn't count, or meant something else. 'Out of context' has come to mean 'I don't need to deal with it'. But tha'ts not what it means or implies. Merlin was correct to say that the quote of Limbaugh was out of context, but his saying it demonstrated nothing. What he needed to do was show that the context gave the statement a different meaning to how it otherwise appears - and he didn't do that.

I'll use an example that you've done above. Somebody tells me that bammertheblue said, of his roommate, "It makes me want to kill him". I say that that quote is out of context. Sure it is, and my pointing it out changes nothing - the somebody maintains that from that quote it can be seen that bammertheblu is homicidal. It's only when I point out that the context was a discussion about how bammertheblue gets irritated when his roommate doesn't renew the toilet paper that its shown that the context gives the statement a meaning other than what it appears to say. With the context, the statement goes from homicidal to hyperbole that we all use when discussing irritating habits of people.

So, Limbaugh's quote - out of context? Yup. Does the fact that it's out of context change anything? Nope.

 

[bammertheblue]

Sorry, but this IS out of context. Merlin's right in that. Context is what surrounds something. Anytime you quote somebody, you do so out of context. It's unavoidable. However, that doesn't make it bad or wrong.

The problem is that people say 'out of context' as if this means that the quote doesn't count, or meant something else. 'Out of context' has come to mean 'I don't need to deal with it'. But tha'ts not what it means or implies. Merlin was correct to say that the quote of Limbaugh was out of context, but his saying it demonstrated nothing. What he needed to do was show that the context gave the statement a different meaning to how it otherwise appears - and he didn't do that.

I'll use an example that you've done above. Somebody tells me that bammertheblue said, of his roommate, "It makes me want to kill him". I say that that quote is out of context. Sure it is, and my pointing it out changes nothing - the somebody maintains that from that quote it can be seen that bammertheblu is homicidal. It's only when I point out that the context was a discussion about how bammertheblue gets irritated when his roommate doesn't renew the toilet paper that its shown that the context gives the statement a meaning other than what it appears to say. With the context, the statement goes from homicidal to hyperbole that we all use when discussing irritating habits of people.

So, Limbaugh's quote - out of context? Yup. Does the fact that it's out of context change anything? Nope.

Yes, that is a much better way of putting it. The underlined part is what I thought I was saying...however I said something else entirely.

Beware! Everything is out of context! (Sorry, I'm a bit squirrely tonight )