Politifact: 93% of Rush Limbaugh's Claims are Half-True, Mostly False, False or Worse

[Dale]

The fact is that he gives out much more actual news, especially on Congress and the Executive Branch, than most other commentators who are interested almost totally in giving their insights or opinions about the news that has already been widely disseminated. This is one of the reasons his audience is so large. And those who don't care for him are upset not because of "lies" but because they don't agree with his "take" on the news.




How many of them are starting threads here saying that all Leftists hate this or that because Rachel Maddow offered her opinion on something or that she's a liar almost all the time?

I think I could count them on an amputated limb.

In my experience with conservative talk shows, they spend ten minutes telling you what you'e supposed to think before they give out the first dribble of fact. First they tell you that this is extremely important. After a minute or two they tell you the state where it's happening. Then they get around to telling you the city. Eventually they tell you who it's happening to. When they're ready, and if it suits their purposes, they may even tell you what happened.

 

[Albion]

Once again, I don't have to be a regular listener. Why is this so difficult for conservatives?

It doesn't matter to me in the least whether you are a regular or frequent listener--until it comes to having a person who is NOT one of them telling us what the content of Rush's programs is.

 

[Dale]

Rush Limbaugh is always lashing out at "liberals." What does Limbaugh mean by a "liberal"? As far as I know a liberal on the Limbaugh show is anyone Rush doesn't like.

Since Limbaugh constantly uses the word "liberal," if he doesn't know what it means, that puts a damper on his reporting any fact about political personalities.

 

[Albion]

Rush Limbaugh is always lashing out at "liberals." What does Limbaugh mean by a "liberal"? As far as I know a liberal on the Limbaugh show is anyone Rush doesn't like.

Got any examples of that? I can't think of one.

Michael Moore? Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Barack Obama? Are any of them wrongly thought to be liberals?

Since Limbaugh constantly uses the word "liberal," if he doesn't know what it means, that puts a damper on his reporting any fact about political personalities.

Just a minute there. I see that you've smoothly moved from saying he calls anyone who disagrees with him a liberal (although you haven't identified a single person who is in that category) to saying that he doesn't KNOW what "liberal" means! Which of those would you like to stick with?

 

[Sistrin]

In my experience with conservative talk shows, they spend ten minutes telling you what you'e supposed to think before they give out the first dribble of fact.

Limbaugh isn't telling his listeners what to think, he is telling them what he thinks. If someone decides to agree with his assessment, that doesn't make them a mind numbed robot.

First they tell you that this is extremely important. After a minute or two they tell you the state where it's happening. Then they get around to telling you the city. Eventually they tell you who it's happening to. When they're ready, and if it suits their purposes, they may even tell you what happened.

This has never been my experience in listening to Limbaugh, but lets see.

From his website and the transcript of last Friday's show.

Thank You, Peter Slen of C-SPAN

The opening paragraph, and thus the opening comments, are:

RUSH: Let's go to C-SPAN. This is from this morning on Washington Journal, and the host is Peter Slen. He was talking about me. This is the most talked about show in the country, most talked about host in the media. And of all the things I said yesterday, this is what C-SPAN found curiously interesting enough to put out there and discuss.

First he made no comment about how important this story was. He immediately cited where the story was going to be taken from, who the host on C-SPAN was, and what he was talking about.

Then he quotes Slen:

SLEN: Rush Limbaugh spent a lot of his show on Thursday talking about this issue, and from the website, RushLimbaugh.com website, "Brian Williams Should Not Resign His Job as NBC Narrative Reader," is the headline. Here's a little bit of the transcript: "They're not news readers anymore. There certainly isn't journalism going on here. It's not just NBC. It's the whole Drive-By Media. They're narrative readers," Mr. Limbaugh said. "You know, in the UK they call 'em 'news readers.' You know, BBC, the news anchors, they're called 'presenters' and 'news readers.' Here they call themselves 'journalists,' and they give themselves awards for bravery and courage."

Then he gives his take on it:

RUSH: And you know what? I have to give credit to Peter Slen of C-SPAN. He actually went to my website to find out what I said, rather than rely on some liberal "watchdog" fraud website. So thank you, Mr. Slen. Thank you, C-SPAN.

Source: Thank You, Peter Slen of C-SPAN - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Another example from the same day:

Obama Wants Your Retirement Account

RUSH: It's a story from the website Watchdog.org, and the headline: "Obama's Budget Targets Your Retirement Accounts." I can't recall the number of times that I have mentioned casually, forcefully, predicted directly over the course of the years that, as this government continued to expand and spend money it didn't have and print money it needed, that at some point it was gonna have to go get money.

He immediately cites the source and then comments on it. On the webpage he cites the sources for the story again.

President Obama’s 2016 budget targets retirement accounts

President Obama?s 2016 budget targets retirement accounts - MarketWatch

Of course this is but two examples but in neither did he say "this is how you should think."

 

[MachZer0]

Limbaugh isn't telling his listeners what to think, he is telling them what he thinks. If someone decides to agree with his assessment, that doesn't make them a mind numbed robot.



This has never been my experience in listening to Limbaugh, but lets see.

From his website and the transcript of last Friday's show.

Thank You, Peter Slen of C-SPAN

The opening paragraph, and thus the opening comments, are:

RUSH: Let's go to C-SPAN. This is from this morning on Washington Journal, and the host is Peter Slen. He was talking about me. This is the most talked about show in the country, most talked about host in the media. And of all the things I said yesterday, this is what C-SPAN found curiously interesting enough to put out there and discuss.

First he made no comment about how important this story was. He immediately cited where the story was going to be taken from, who the host on C-SPAN was, and what he was talking about.

Then he quotes Slen:

SLEN: Rush Limbaugh spent a lot of his show on Thursday talking about this issue, and from the website, RushLimbaugh.com website, "Brian Williams Should Not Resign His Job as NBC Narrative Reader," is the headline. Here's a little bit of the transcript: "They're not news readers anymore. There certainly isn't journalism going on here. It's not just NBC. It's the whole Drive-By Media. They're narrative readers," Mr. Limbaugh said. "You know, in the UK they call 'em 'news readers.' You know, BBC, the news anchors, they're called 'presenters' and 'news readers.' Here they call themselves 'journalists,' and they give themselves awards for bravery and courage."

Then he gives his take on it:

RUSH: And you know what? I have to give credit to Peter Slen of C-SPAN. He actually went to my website to find out what I said, rather than rely on some liberal "watchdog" fraud website. So thank you, Mr. Slen. Thank you, C-SPAN.

Source: Thank You, Peter Slen of C-SPAN - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Another example from the same day:

Obama Wants Your Retirement Account

RUSH: It's a story from the website Watchdog.org, and the headline: "Obama's Budget Targets Your Retirement Accounts." I can't recall the number of times that I have mentioned casually, forcefully, predicted directly over the course of the years that, as this government continued to expand and spend money it didn't have and print money it needed, that at some point it was gonna have to go get money.

He immediately cites the source and then comments on it. On the webpage he cites the sources for the story again.

President Obama’s 2016 budget targets retirement accounts

President Obama?s 2016 budget targets retirement accounts - MarketWatch

Of course this is but two examples but in neither did he say "this is how you should think."

I love it when someone tells us that conservative talk show hosts "tell us what to think, and then they prove it by linking to DailyKos

 

[brewmama]

Limbaugh isn't telling his listeners what to think, he is telling them what he thinks. If someone decides to agree with his assessment, that doesn't make them a mind numbed robot.



This has never been my experience in listening to Limbaugh, but lets see.

From his website and the transcript of last Friday's show.

Thank You, Peter Slen of C-SPAN

The opening paragraph, and thus the opening comments, are:

RUSH: Let's go to C-SPAN. This is from this morning on Washington Journal, and the host is Peter Slen. He was talking about me. This is the most talked about show in the country, most talked about host in the media. And of all the things I said yesterday, this is what C-SPAN found curiously interesting enough to put out there and discuss.

First he made no comment about how important this story was. He immediately cited where the story was going to be taken from, who the host on C-SPAN was, and what he was talking about.

Then he quotes Slen:

SLEN: Rush Limbaugh spent a lot of his show on Thursday talking about this issue, and from the website, RushLimbaugh.com website, "Brian Williams Should Not Resign His Job as NBC Narrative Reader," is the headline. Here's a little bit of the transcript: "They're not news readers anymore. There certainly isn't journalism going on here. It's not just NBC. It's the whole Drive-By Media. They're narrative readers," Mr. Limbaugh said. "You know, in the UK they call 'em 'news readers.' You know, BBC, the news anchors, they're called 'presenters' and 'news readers.' Here they call themselves 'journalists,' and they give themselves awards for bravery and courage."

Then he gives his take on it:

RUSH: And you know what? I have to give credit to Peter Slen of C-SPAN. He actually went to my website to find out what I said, rather than rely on some liberal "watchdog" fraud website. So thank you, Mr. Slen. Thank you, C-SPAN.

Source: Thank You, Peter Slen of C-SPAN - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Another example from the same day:

Obama Wants Your Retirement Account

RUSH: It's a story from the website Watchdog.org, and the headline: "Obama's Budget Targets Your Retirement Accounts." I can't recall the number of times that I have mentioned casually, forcefully, predicted directly over the course of the years that, as this government continued to expand and spend money it didn't have and print money it needed, that at some point it was gonna have to go get money.

He immediately cites the source and then comments on it. On the webpage he cites the sources for the story again.

President Obama’s 2016 budget targets retirement accounts

President Obama?s 2016 budget targets retirement accounts - MarketWatch

Of course this is but two examples but in neither did he say "this is how you should think."

Very good representation. And that's typical of Rush's show.

 

[Dale]

Albion in post #64:
"
Michael Moore? Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Barack Obama? Are any of them wrongly thought to be liberals?"

Rush Limbaugh has no idea who these people are or what they stand for.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Albion in post #64:
"
Michael Moore? Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Barack Obama? Are any of them wrongly thought to be liberals?"

Rush Limbaugh has no idea who these people are or what they stand for.

Based on that, then I'd have to say you have even less of an idea who Rush Limbaugh is or what he stands for.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I love it when someone tells us that conservative talk show hosts "tell us what to think, and then they prove it by linking to DailyKos

Indeed - and better yet the temerity to try to tell us this flaming liberal or that flaming liberal isn't in fact "liberal" at all, that we don't even know what liberalism is, or socialism is, and then trot out puerile, painfully picayune arguments why... and this is the kicker - as if "we built it" (such definitions). By such logic, "you didn't build that, unless of course it's wrong, then you did build that." And, "no man is an island, unless of course you disagree with us, then you are."

Ironically, what IS true in all this is that such obviously torturous arguments and twisted logic are themselves "half-true, mostly false, false, or worse."

 

[JustOneWay]

Rush Limbaugh, and right wing talk radio for that matter, promotes anger, hatred and resentment. Just by the posts in this thread alone, I can tell which people listen to Limbaugh/Savage/Levin/Hannity.

 

[MachZer0]

Rush Limbaugh, and right wing talk radio for that matter, promotes anger, hatred and resentment. Just by the posts in this thread alone, I can tell which people listen to Limbaugh/Savage/Levin/Hannity.

You may have a point. It's hard to compare the anger, hatred and resentment expressed toward talk radio show hosts, especially by people who preach tolerance

 

[Sistrin]

Michael Moore? Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Barack Obama? Are any of them wrongly thought to be liberals?

Rush Limbaugh has no idea who these people are or what they stand for.

For you to make this comment clearly illustrates you have little to no idea who any of those people are, to include Rush Limbaugh. These four mentioned are public figures with public records, it is easy to determine their beliefs simply by listening to them or reading what they have to say.

Michael Moore on 9/11:

"If someone did this [9/11] to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes' destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"

And this from his 2003 Academy Awards acceptance speech:

"We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you. Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up."

Ruth Bader Ginsburg on abortion:

The emphasis must be not on the right to abortion but on the right to privacy and reproductive control.

On the US Constitution:

I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in 2012.

Revealing her progressive ideals:

Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.

Barack Obama, on the American citizenry:

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

On economic policy:

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

"We're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy."

On Islam:

“The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

“That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

“Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”

I always find it odd how members of the liberal left will wail and moan over something a conservative said, claiming that comment alone is proof enough of who and what they are and sufficient to have them banned from the public square, but then refuse to even acknowledge the truth about what issues from the mouths of their own liberal icons.

It isn't hard to know who someone is when they constantly tell you who they are.

Rush Limbaugh, and right wing talk radio for that matter, promotes anger, hatred and resentment.

DU/Huff Po talking point number 17. Limbaugh promotes no such things. The anger, hatred, and resentment are to be found in the hearts and minds of those who are always talking about anger, hatred, and resentment.

Just by the posts in this thread alone, I can tell which people listen to Limbaugh/Savage/Levin/Hannity.

Which means what, exactly? What are you trying to say about those us who happen to listen to Limbaugh or Hannity?

 

[JustOneWay]

DU/Huff Po talking point number 17. Limbaugh promotes no such things. The anger, hatred, and resentment are to be found in the hearts and minds of those who are always talking about anger, hatred, and resentment.

Those who are angry about immigration, Muslims, liberals, Obama, and the government find solace in conservative talk radio. I understand it is simplistic to say that anger and resentment are found in the hearts of those who are angry and resentful, however the facts have shown that conservative talk radio stoke negative sentiments in those predisposed to said issues.

Studies confirm:

Of particular interest to
us is how biomedical research into physiological and
psychological effects can provide indicators of the
impact of hate speech targeting vulnerable groups
as it circulates through social networks sustained by
commercial talk radio.

http://nhmc.org/sites/default/files/Social Networks for Hate Speech_UCLA CSRC.pdf

 

[MachZer0]

Those who are angry about immigration, Muslims, liberals, Obama, and the government find solace in conservative talk radio. I understand it is simplistic to say that anger and resentment are found in the hearts of those who are angry and resentful, however the facts have shown that conservative talk radio stoke negative sentiments in those predisposed to said issues.

Studies confirm:

http://nhmc.org/sites/default/files/Social Networks for Hate Speech_UCLA CSRC.pdf

Angry liberal group finds hate speech in talk radio. Who could have seen that coming?

 

[JustOneWay]

I thought I would have received a more complex and reasoned response to counter the study I provided however it was not to be. Who could have seen that coming?

 

[MachZer0]

I thought I would have received a more complex and reasoned response to counter the study I provided however it was not to be. Who could have seen that coming?

When a study is conducted by racists, it counters itself

 

[JustOneWay]

When a study is conducted by racists, it counters itself

When confronted by a complex study, it is easier to call those who prepared it racist than to form a reasoned argument to counter the information in the study.

I want to know when conservatism became a race?

 

[MachZer0]

When confronted by a complex study, it is easier to call those who prepared it racist than to form a reasoned argument to counter the information in the study.

I want to know when conservatism became a race?

What's the name of the group? "Chicano Studies..." Nuff said

 

[Sistrin]

I thought I would have received a more complex and reasoned response to counter the study I provided however it was not to be. Who could have seen that coming?

The first red flag in the study is the use of the term hate speech. Hate speech as defined by whom? This is addressed later.

Then the study cites the programs they decided to monitor in order to arrive at their results were all conservative radio programs. Quote:

This study focuses on the social network generated by the hosts of five shows: The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Sean Hannity Show, The Glenn Beck Program, The Savage Nation, and The John & Ken Show.

They sampled only six weeks of broadcast.

In table Six they labeled commentary on various broadcast as "anti-Democrat," "anti-federalism," and "anti-Islam," under the typical leftist dogma that any criticism of an establishment must mean those doing the criticizing are "anti" whatever it is they are discussing.

Table Eight repeats these labels under the heading of Ideological Positions of Scheduled Guest. This reflects bias on the part of those conducting the study.

The study bemoans the fact the majority of guest on the selected shows were Republicans, as if that is some surprise. The majority of the guest on Rachael Maddow are Liberal Democrats, but apparently that isn't worth mention.

The conclusions begin with this comment:

The data demonstrate the mutual referencing among a relatively small cluster of nodes that include hosts, guests, and other affiliated individuals and groups. The findings reveal that these individuals and groups were connected by certain ideological sentiments targeting vulnerable groups. For example, discussions around immigration and Islam were framed in oppositional and absolutist terms: immigrants as “illegal” and law breaking, and Islam as the context of terrorism.

What is ignored is illegal immigrants did violate the law and entered the country illegally. It is the liberal/Democrat position such violations of the laws of the United States are inconsequential and to be summarily dismissed. In addition Islamic terrorist are the most active and rampant, but the phrase is, once again, constructed to imply conservatives and Republicans believe all Muslims are terrorist. This is, of course, a lie.

The study monitored only five radio programs but label these collectively as "talk radio," as if the totality of talk radio programming is these five programs.

Concerning the definition of hate speech, from the notes, quote:

6. For our definition of hate speech, we use the National telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) report to Congress, which addressed the role of telecommunications in the commission of hate crimes. The report defined hate speech as either (1) “words that threaten to incite ‘imminent unlawful action,’ which may be criminalized without violating the First Amendment”; or (2) “speech that creates a climate of hate of hate or prejudice, which may in turn foster the commission of hate crimes" (U.S. Department of Commerce 1993, 6). The NTIA report draws its definition from the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (1990), which established two criteria for hate speech: that it targets a vulnerable group, and that it threatens or fosters the commission of hate crimes against that group, as defined by law.

Yet the study provides no evidence of any of the five selected programs inciting violence against anyone.