Rush

There was once a time, many years ago, when I enjoyed listening to conservative radio pundit Rush Limbaugh.  Occasionally I agreed with what he had to say, and I used to argue with his detractors that he was good radio entertainment.  Sure, at times he was outlandish, but that was the stuff of high ratings.  Frequently I’d disagree with him, but always he made me think.  And then, after hearing a call Rush took from a listener named Irv, I stopped listening.

It was a mistake that Irv ever got onto the air.  He was a thoughtful and articulate liberal.  Usually, the only liberals the pre-screeners allowed on Rush’s show seemed somewhere between ditsy and psychotic.  But not Irv.

Irv stated articulately, from an historical perspective and a personal belief system, why prayer in schools shouldn’t be allowed.  Rush responded, at first, with several non-sequiturs which Irv correctly pointed out.  Rush accused Irv of not listening, to which Irv calmly replied that Rush was wrong.  In fact, he informed Rush, he was listening, just not agreeing.

Rush began to raise his voice attempting to bait Irv.  Irv did not take the bait, but instead calmly and politely pointed out to Rush his inconsistencies.  Rush then ended the conversation by stating that Irv had called with no intention of dialogue and accused Irv of rudeness and arrogance.  Rush got in the last word, cut off Irv, and switched over to a commercial.

For me, this was no longer radio entertainment.  I heard on this call an arrogant, mean-spirited and intolerant man.  I no longer found Rush amusing or thought provoking.  I came to believe that his detractors were right to be concerned.  In all fairness, Rush never claimed to be “no spin” or “fair and balanced.”  It was clear that his radio show was a widely-listened-to platform for one man’s right-wing conservative opinions.  Rush had no intention of allowing his show to become a forum for debating ideas.

Rush espoused the virtues of a free and democratic country, but consistently devalued debate and ridiculed divergent opinion.  He espoused conservative American values, but excluded dissent from his media platform.  There was to be no right other than Rush’s right.  It took just one call for me to view Rush Limbaugh no longer as an entertainer but as a hypocrite, a demagogue and a threat.  I stopped listening.

Now fast forward twenty-five years, and I watch in disbelief as Rush Limbaugh is awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Leaders

“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds . . .”  (from Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address)



The Democrats have bumbled and stumbled through the Iowa Caucus, the impeachment trial and one more forgettable candidates’ debate.  And now our president stands at the podium gloating at the Democrat’s ineptness, ridiculing and pointing out by name the political rivals he so easily dismisses as ‘horrible people’.  Democrat or Republican, I look to either side in search of great leaders and I see none.

By consensus, Washington and Lincoln are considered the two greatest American presidents.  With courage and character, each led the country through times of crisis and vulnerability.  When I was a boy, we honored Washington and Lincoln on their birthdays.  A symptom of the times, Presidents’ Day now passes with hardly any notice or fanfare.

George Washington was the undisputed leader of this newly emerging country.  With little opposition he became the first president.  He was described by peers as candid, to the point, and a man of quiet strength.  He rejected ostentatious trappings and titles.  With disdain for unrestrained power, he established many precedents for future presidential behavior and protocol.

Yet, if he were alive today, Washington could not survive the venom of modern politics.  Media would call him aloof and arrogant.  Critics would point to his quick temper.  On camera he would be just a dull and uninteresting public speaker, with bad teeth.

Abraham Lincoln was a remarkable, if not improbable leader.  Rising from the obscure politics of frontier Illinois, he was elected president at the time of this nation’s greatest crisis.  Lincoln has been described as an unpretentious man, quick with words and wit, concerned about people and their problems.  He knew how to utilize the talents of his political rivals and how to turn his rivals into allies.  His moral clarity was unwavering.  If there is heroism in words, never was this more so than in Lincoln’s second inaugural address.  To a nation torn in two, eager for revenge, he spoke instead of forgiveness and reconciliation.

Like Washington, Lincoln too would not succeed in today’s political climate.  He had a strange and awkward appearance.  He was prone to cycles of severe depression.  And he was without the personal wealth it now takes to run a successful campaign.

Great leaders don’t emerge from the malevolent environment of today’s politics.  Many who might be well suited to lead won’t enter the fray. The press, the party henchmen, and the president himself are all too eager to criticize, humiliate, cut down and destroy.  Few candidates survive the gauntlet of our current political process, and none come through unscathed.

I think we need to once again celebrate the lives of Washington and Lincoln.  In order to inspire great leaders, we need to honor these great leaders.  For the sake of our future, we need to remember our past and those who truly made America great.

Selective Inattention

Yesterday, Kansas City celebrated the Super Bowl champion Chiefs.  Outside it was cold and damp.  Despite the weather, hundreds of thousands came out for the tickertape parade and the rally at Union Station.  It was a joyful day, a party atmosphere for the city.

That evening, as is my routine, I watched the ABC World News.  Halfway through this national news broadcast there was mention of the Kansas City parade.  What was shown on T.V. had occurred just prior to the parade, a clip of a drug-impaired driver being chased down the parade route and caught.  The police had done well, a potential disaster averted.  No one was injured.

That was it.  There was no mention of the celebration.  No mention that the remainder of the event went without a hitch.  No mention of the tremendous joy and civic pride.  The news showed a brief chase scene and an impaired driver.  That’s what they chose to show.  Anyone watching only the news would have seen one more unpleasant incident in a newscast filled with unpleasant incidents.

There was so much that could have been covered, that could have been shown on the news.  There were many uplifting moments.  There were many memorable speeches.  There was so much energy coming from a crowd that had waited fifty years for the celebration.  There was so much youthful exuberance from the newly crowned champions.

I am not concerned by what was covered in the news.  I am concerned by what was not.  Call it ‘selective inattention’.  Nothing portrayed in the news was a lie.  Nothing was ‘fake news’.  However, through selection and through omission, the whole story was skewed and all that was so joyful was ignored.

With such glaring omissions, I assume there was an agenda.  I just can’t figure out what. Was it ratings?  Are ratings better when only reporting disasters and near misses?  Was it political?  Is the agenda of the news to remind us of what isn’t right with our society?  Was it editorial?  Are news editors on the East Coast dismissive of good news coming from the Heartland?  Was it the constraint of time?  If so, why show only the bad?

I believe that democracy must have a free and independent press.  I don’t like the current administration’s attacks on the media.  I don’t like the common accusatory cry of ‘fake news’.  I write this blog concerned for our free press. However, because of the glaring omissions, because of the ‘selective inattention’, in one otherwise trivial minute of television news I became aware how selective reporting gives credibility to its critics.