In New York magazine, film critic David Edelstein (not to be confused with L.A. film critic David Ehrenstein, the man who launched the "Magic Negro" controversy) whacked away at Rush Limbaugh’s "freaky and terrifying" and even "psychopathological" story of how he intimidated a journalist by threatening to go into his personal life and his past writings.
Edelstein is scared by a Media Matters item on how Limbaugh criticized the new ProPublica investigative journalism group and its search for exposés with "moral force" – Rush made the point that investigative journalists have their own foibles that no one exposes – and said he once threatened a news magazine cover story writer that he could dish dirt back at him. Edelstein charged that Limbaugh was intimidating Time's Richard Corliss, who in return offered a "rather gentle" treatment of Limbaugh:
In January 1995, Time’s Richard Corliss wrote a Limbaugh cover story that was, to my mind, rather gentle on its subject — who back then was single-handedly moving public discourse in a new and viciously inflammatory direction. Corliss covered the bases, but he seemed to be pulling his punches. I might be unfair: As its more recent Ann Coulter cover story demonstrated, Time is hardly the place for ringing denunciations of media figures — on any side — with substantial followings. It’s possible the story was edited to appear neutral — to call attention to Limbaugh as an intriguing new phenomenon rather than a reeking fount of lies and misinformation.
Sadly for Edelstein, it’s very easy to pull up Corliss’s Time cover story, and if he thinks it’s "rather gentle" and "pulling its punches" or "neutral," he’s relying on foggy memory, or his idea of a hatchet job is rather extreme.
Start with the actual cover. Over a picture of Rush with a cigar (his face obscured by what looks like painted-in smoke) is the headline "Is Rush Limbaugh Good for America?" The subheadline suggested the answer was no: "Talk radio is only the beginning. Electronic populism threatens to short-circuit representative democracy."
That’s a strange conclusion for the first month of the Republican Congress, since representative democracy looked mighty Limbaughesque at that historical crossroads. Here’s how the "rather gentle" Corliss piece begins, with Air America-anticipating parody, more stand-up comedy routine than magazine journalism:
Hi there, listeners! This is Rash Lambaste, the liberals' Limbaugh, with all the news you need to know. Well, we just had another beaut from Newt. The Speaker hired a House historian who thought Nazism should be taught in schools. That's good sound Republicanism: instead of condoms, let's distribute SS armbands. Newt dumped her, but in the nicest way: he visited her and served her with divorce papers. And how about term limits, that great notion of an electorate that can't trust themselves to vote the rascals out? Old Guard Republicans must love that! Newt's in his ninth term, so he's way over the limit. And Senator Thurmond -- wasn't he the Founding Father who filibustered against the Declaration of Independence? C'mon, Republicans! Don't make it so easy for me!
This is gentle? It’s true that this article is not so much a profile on Limbaugh as much as it is a denunciation of conservative talk radio in general, from Sean Hannity to Neal Boortz to Ken Hamblin to Michael Reagan. Corliss may have planned to impale Limbaugh, and then pulled back. But it’s not as if Limbaugh was promoted as a swell guy in any way. Here are the other two significant Limbaugh passages in the piece:
On the radio side, conservative talk also had '50s and '60s pioneers: cantankerous Joe Pine and Bob Grant. Grant and Limbaugh, who have broadcast back to back on New York City's WABC since 1988, have set the limits -- one growly, the other comic-pompous -- for Right Radio.
....Decades of power made Democrats soft, logy, too eager to compromise; they showed compassion but rarely passion. By the time Limbaugh went national in 1988, the Dems could do little but sleepwalk into the propeller. How could they know that the winning attitude of the '90s -- on radio and on the stump -- would be to show a killer instinct?
But let’s return briefly to Edelstein’s point: he thought Limbaugh, who said he suggested to the magazine writer that he knew something about the writer and masturbation, had some opposition research in his formerly nicotine-stained fingers:
Corliss, as one of the chief critics for the middlebrow, high-circulation Time, likely didn’t want a piece he’d written in the mid-seventies for the Village Voice hauled into the light — a piece from the days when he was a cheeky and passionate young writer trying to push the envelope. The subject was porn, and I remember it beginning (I don’t have the exact quote, but, believe me, it sticks in the memory): "Like many people, I go to porn theaters to masturbate." (The title of the piece, we've confirmed, was "Confessions of an Ex-Pornologist.")
Edelstein then mourned how masturbation has ruined fine careers, from Pee Wee Herman to Joycelyn Elders, and how film critics can no longer be frank about enjoying the old porn houses.
What Edelstein evades in this whole denunciation of Limbaugh’s alleged "gangster" tactics is this: don’t reporters ever use these kinds of tactics to muscle sources into providing the goods? Even more importantly (re: the Hillary apple-polishers at Media Matters), haven’t liberals like the Clintonites ever intimidated reporters about how their careers or personal reputations might be a wee bit ruined if they keep pursuing a Clinton expose? If it's offensive when a conservative does it, then it ought be offensive when a liberal does.
As for Time, it was not in the habit of gentleness toward Limbaugh. Just two weeks later in 1995, Christopher John Farley was defending Louis Farrakhan by attacking Rush Limbaugh.
Last month Senator Ernest Hollings joked about Africans being cannibals, but no other white Senators were pressured to condemn him. Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern make questionable racial remarks, and yet President Bush invited Limbaugh to the White House, and Senator Alfonse D'Amato attended Stern's book party.
Farley provided no example of racist Rush remarks.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Once again
October 18, 2007 - 13:17 ET by FastEdmy premis is confirmed - today's "reporters" are all about the agenda, not the facts. Cowards all! (a generalization of course, but them I'm not agenda driven, nor carry water for the demolibs). When will these "journalists/reporters" report on algores' mentor? Or, hell forbid (they don't believe in heaven), do a story critical of hillary and her scandels? How's about the fact that hillary has NO experience in real life - lawyer!?! - billing records ring a bell, FBI files sound familiar?
Agenda driven being proven in lost capital, lower circulation and viewership. Try the truth, you might get a raise! (ooopps, can't get paid too much, and admit it)
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Ed,
October 18, 2007 - 13:35 ET by Chris NormanThey don't just report. They start with a premise...
Test the Waters Rush Limbaugh
October 18, 2007 - 13:17 ET by Lame CherryIn knowing Rush Limbaugh always wanting to keep above the fray and win the debate on message, I really do not quite understand why Doc Limbaugh does not expose what he knows.
I know by the way Mr. Limbaugh time and again mentions items and gets very quiet on other issues that he knows very well in "adult beverage conversations" just who is involved in reprehensible acts. Everyone in media hears the rumors or has been at the gathering where in a drunken slip some big shot either tried to rape the intern or made a comment about some associates "good looking child". This is why Clinton raping women and sexing up interns was no big story to the MSM as "power sex is one of the perks of the trade".
Examples pop up all the time. David Gregory in covering Bush in the east showed up drunk as a skunk, but it gets swept under the rug. For every drunk reporter, there is another lurking around in the disrespective capitals of porn, pedophilia, human traffic and dope smuggling "tasting the spoils of being an elite".
The Mexican army is dumping tons of hash on the border invading America in armed stand offs with Border Patrol yearly.......yet not one media story on it in the MSM. Why???? Because the funds all end up in their cut in their cartel bosses banks.
Rush Limbaugh has been set up, smeared and made a joke in his putrid Viagra arrest. In that, I do not understand why Limbaugh does not expose what he knows. Sure there are "conservative" reporters who are going to get exposed in the battle, but it is past time this sinful ilk gets exposed so the real pariahs have the light day shown on their typing rants.
Bloggers and the media sites need to understand here am I not just talking about Bill Maher and what he knows, but my concern is about those children being passed around in sex traffic. Huge rings are exposed in Europe and not one expose ends up in American news as they are covering up their own sex enclaves and their own travel habits.
Rush Limbaugh has honestly not done his job as this sexual perversion dominates the leadership circles across the globe and everyone knows it. UN Peacekeepers get caught raping and selling kids in Africa and not one investigation nor one report.
When is someone going to come forth with the real list of names and photos which are in files out there. Abu Gharib just did not happen and was manufactured. People all know this, but no one bothers to bring it out.
Post Script: The one person in this who probably could rectify the entire situation is Howard Stern, but he is such a lazy person that he falls back on perversion and sex for ratings.
I have seen Howard Stern wade into liberal lion's dens and beat them at their own game. He is extremely talented, intelligent and thinks on his feet. No one is asking to ruin people's lives in Larry Craig gotcha, but there are innocent people and every law abiding American who are being harmed by this criminal ilk as they are being blackmailed to vote for things or carry stories which harm the United States.
Howard Stern can you use your talent for awhile as a journalist as you have it in you to start a firestorm in America to cleanse this nation of the dirty secrets that make it run.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
still don't see the MSM
October 18, 2007 - 13:18 ET by TruthMongerstill don't see the MSM bias here - can anyone help me out:)?
Liberals are good, conservatives are bad - so how is this biased I ask you people...
A service of the new NB respect police
The consensus is in. The
October 18, 2007 - 13:32 ET by Jack BauerThe consensus is in. The debate is closed.
Dose this mean that
October 18, 2007 - 14:56 ET by FastEdin ten or twenty years, we'll be overrun with demolibs? THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!!!!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Edelstein then mourned
October 18, 2007 - 13:33 ET by Jack BauerOmigod. That must explain this sticky opening paragraph on the blowhard's blog...
I, for one, am not interested in any "fluid" exchange with the mastabatory obsessed Edelstein. I just recoil in horror at what he may be doing while blogging with one hand.
On a lighter note, anyone else notice his name is an anagram of "Edsel nite"
what a hateful thing to say
October 18, 2007 - 15:06 ET by TruthMongerwhat a hateful thing to say jack - what about pee wee herman's classic sex jokes for kids that will never see the light of day
A service of the new NB respect police
Great idea for a new show.........
October 18, 2007 - 13:35 ET by BrillianceYou could base a new show devoted entirely to exposing hipocracy among the journalism crowd.
I assure you I would tune in for every episode.
Just thinking about it makes me ridgid with excitement!
Then it would be either
October 18, 2007 - 14:59 ET by FastEda very long run, or one episode - whom amongst our present flock of fine feathered faulty "journalists" would anchor the show and do the "reporting"??
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Fighting back
October 18, 2007 - 13:45 ET by KC MulvilleThis just shows that reporters and media pundits don’t like it when their victims fight back. Reporters feel free to take whatever potshots they want, and expect their targets to absorb the potshots without reaction. Reporters deem their reports to be the truth; therefore no one has any cause to criticize the media. Pure hubris.
The so-called mainstream
October 18, 2007 - 13:47 ET by fitzfongThe so-called mainstream media are starting to come apart at the seams. Between this pathetic piece of baseless speculation and Carol Simpson's admission (as if we didn't know) that she's a Clinton supporter, there are literally thousands of examples of "objective" journalists dispensing with pretense and showing overt left-wing bias. El Rushbo really gets under the skin of these creeps. I love it.
Ms. Simpson's revelation
October 18, 2007 - 13:57 ET by Chris NormanMs. Simpson's revelation was about as surprising as Ellen DeGeneres coming out, both elliciting a response of, "No!"... :)
My god... Ellen's
October 18, 2007 - 14:03 ET by Jack BauerMy god... Ellen's gay?
Who's next to join the muffia... Anne Heche? Nah. Never happen.
Jack
October 18, 2007 - 14:07 ET by Chris NormanCould you believe it? I know my jaw dropped, upon hearing her announcement. I mean, who would've thought?
Next thing you're gonna
October 18, 2007 - 14:20 ET by FastEdtry to pawn off on us, is that Rosie is REALLY gay. What ends will you go? (sorry)
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Ed,
October 18, 2007 - 14:33 ET by Chris NormanI'm not one to "out" O'Donnell, but I have my suspicions...
Ellen is not gay - she just
October 18, 2007 - 15:08 ET by TruthMongerEllen is not gay - she just plays one in our culture
A service of the new NB respect police
LOL - totally...she's the
October 18, 2007 - 15:10 ET by mgerardnLOL - totally...she's the female Larry Craig
what does Larry have to do
October 18, 2007 - 15:20 ET by TruthMongerwhat does Larry have to do with being gay...?
he's into disorderly conduct - that's out of the closet fer sher:)
A service of the new NB respect police
You guys are killin' me...........
October 18, 2007 - 14:51 ET by BrillianceFirst "PMSNBC" - made me laugh out loud.
And now "muffia". Hillarious
Yes, brings a whole new
October 18, 2007 - 15:07 ET by Jack BauerYes, brings a whole new dimension to mob expressions such as "making your bones".
I support the troops but not
October 18, 2007 - 15:11 ET by mgerardnI support the troops but not the mission, can I click on the link?
What would be the
October 18, 2007 - 15:14 ET by Jack BauerWhat would be the point?
Cool, so I can support the
October 18, 2007 - 15:16 ET by mgerardnCool, so I can support the troops and not the mission - thank you for clarifying.
So tying up the resources
October 18, 2007 - 15:29 ET by PeskyDaneSo tying up the resources of the enemy so they can't launch another attack on the homeland isn't worthy of your support?
I support the Marines
October 18, 2007 - 15:37 ET by mgerardnThe Marine Corps is pressing to remove its forces from Iraq and to send marines instead to Afghanistan, to take over the leading role in combat there
mgerardn, hard to belive
October 18, 2007 - 15:43 ET by bassndudemgerardn, hard to belive you would support a shift from killing in one field to another. Good to see you are a "war monger" like those Marines. They really get a kick out of killing those guys. They want to leave Iraq because there is a shortage of targets these days.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I've got no problem with war
October 18, 2007 - 15:46 ET by mgerardnI've got no problem with war - let's just do it in the right areas, I know Osama isn't a priority to Bush anymore....but that'd be kind of a nice target.
Osama should be Bush's top
October 18, 2007 - 16:03 ET by TruthMongerOsama should be Bush's top priority in the WOT? How is he not? How would you do it differently - would really love to hear something other than the (obviously) idiot Bush administration take on this...
Let's hear the genius of your plan, please! This will be fanatastic....
A service of the new NB respect police
When you say you don't
October 18, 2007 - 16:04 ET by PeskyDaneWhen you say you don't "support the mission," you hit a hot button. Its seems from your follow-up posts that you do support the mission, but would change the way the mission is prosecuted. This may just be a matter of semantics, but welcome to the club - and by the way, we meet in a very big tent. Believe me, plenty of us around here are all dying to draw up "the plan" to end this chapter of what is set to be a 200-year war.
Help me out here.
October 18, 2007 - 15:47 ET by KarmaHow are you supporting the Marines?
I send a box of 50 NFL
October 18, 2007 - 15:49 ET by mgerardnI send a box of 50 NFL Jerseys to Pendleton every December
That's a good gesture mgerardn.
October 18, 2007 - 15:57 ET by KarmaMy son is a Lion's fan. You wouldn't consider sending some to Selfridge ANGB in Michigan would you?
So you would advocate a
October 18, 2007 - 15:56 ET by PeskyDaneSo you would advocate a re-focusing within the SWA theater of operations.
That's not a repudiation of the president's policy to project American Power in order to keep the enemy at arm's length.
See tag line below.
October 18, 2007 - 15:43 ET by kathleenirishSee tag line below. Plain and simple. Go play with yourself.
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
Ooh, a tagline. What other
October 18, 2007 - 15:47 ET by mgerardnOoh, a tagline. What other bumperstickers do you live by?
Bumper sticker...
October 18, 2007 - 16:05 ET by Clear thinker"If you are living as if there is no Hell, you had better be right!"
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Bumper Sticker?
October 18, 2007 - 16:39 ET by fitzfongOh, you mean like "I support the troops, but not the mission"? Bumper sticker, indeed.
You claim to "support the
October 18, 2007 - 15:49 ET by fitzfongYou claim to "support the troops but not the mission"...a meaningless platitude if ever there was one. John Kerry claimed to support the troops, but all he did was stab them in the back to elevate his own profile. Perhaps that's your definition of supporting the troops? But, OK, I'm a fair person. I'll give you a chance to explain how you actually support the troops.
it's like supporting taxes
October 18, 2007 - 15:56 ET by TruthMongerit's like supporting taxes in general but not some of the programs they fund
for example: I support taxes in general but not SCHIP
my question for the libs is - why don't you support the mission of fighting terrorism - kind of shocking to me
A service of the new NB respect police
I wouldn't be too
October 18, 2007 - 16:03 ET by fitzfongI wouldn't be too shocked. Why fight terrorism when you can simply pretend it doesn't exist?
I see that mgerardn has
October 18, 2007 - 16:05 ET by Chris NormanI see that mgerardn has found more productive waters to fish in. His hooks and baits are all over this thread...
Even IF it was "rather
October 18, 2007 - 14:02 ET by Chris NormanEven IF it was "rather gentle" (and it wasn't), what is he suggesting, that any story about Limbaugh ought to be harsh? Just goes to show what is expected from Time and the MSM, when dealing with Conservatives - and usually their expectations are met and then some...
Et tu, Edelstein?
October 18, 2007 - 23:16 ET by tomchrisWhen I was a young movie buff I was a fan of Edelstein when the then 20-something film critic began to write for publications like the Village Voice and Rolling Stone back in the 80's. (I felt jealous of his success, to be honest). Although Edelstein hailed from the Pauline Kael "snap, crackle, and pop" school of film criticism, his wit and eye for talent was sharp (he pegged the Cohen brothers and Tim Burton's success very early).
Sadly, Edelstein has descended into that middle-aged menapausal malady known as Angry East Coast Liberalism. Like the scripes in the New York Times, Edelstein's disdain for the right now rears it head in many of his pieces. In an online interview, Edelstein stated he was a big fan of Air America Radio in particular Randi Rhodes so this (failed) attempt to slur Limbaugh is not a surprize. What is a surprize, no, sad, is how supposedly attuned cynics like Edelstein are falling in line within the world of Hillary and George Soros and taking whatever lie from Media Matters as the truth.