Tom Brokaw Trashes Rush Limbaugh, Talk Radio on Ingraham Show

Photo of Tim Graham.
  • Bookmark and Share

Former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw took his publicity tour for his Sixties book "Boom!" into (at least somewhat) hostile territory on Monday’s Laura Ingraham show. Ingraham played an old clip in which Brokaw slapped talk radio as "instantly jingoistic and savagely critical" of people questioning war.

Like many other journalists who instantly let conservatives know they haven’t listened to Rush Limbaugh, Brokaw insisted Limbaugh "doesn’t want to hear another point of view, except his." Ingraham disagreed. Brokaw added: "The problem with talk radio is they only want to hear one note...The problem with talk radio is they mock anyone else’s point of view, and they do it often in a mindless fashion." This is rich talk coming from a man whose network hired Bill Moyers as his newscast’s only commentator in 1995, and a man who wrote a syrupy tribute to hot liberal mock-jock Jon Stewart for his "Athenian" ideals in Time magazine. Audio clip (5:05): MP3 audio

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Brokaw appeared on two segments with Ingraham, and they carried on a friendly discussion about the themes of his Sixties book. Before the talk radio exchange, the only other notable point of contention was Ingraham’s suggestion that Phyllis Schlafly could have been interviewed next to Gloria Steinem in his women’s lib section. Brokaw said she didn’t accomplish enough to be considered worthy of inclusion, but noted he did interview Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Here’s the transcript of the talk radio exchange:

INGRAHAM: One thing that we heard you talk about recently – a couple of years ago – you were talking about talk radio. I want to play the clip, then ask you about it.

BROKAW (from his 'Telephonic Jihad' speech from 2003): Radio stations have become instantly jingoistic and savagely critical of any questions raised about any decisions leading up to, for example, the war in Iraq, motivated not by ideological or intellectual passions, but by the raw commercial possibilities of creating a mob mentality.

INGRAHAM, playfully: Mob mentality? I took that personally. You know, I said ‘wait a second, I don’t think I’m about the mob mentality.’

BROKAW: I didn’t single you out, Laura --

INGRAHAM: All right.

BROKAW: – because you do have a greater range. You know as well as I do that across the country, uh, and this happened on the left in the sixties, by the way, and it became, what it became was the mantra of conservative talk radio in the 19, in the late 1990s and into 2000, that any one who raised their hand and said ‘Look, I have some real reservations about this,’ you know, they were all but called treasonous. And there are a lot of wannabes out there, and they do it for commercial reasons, and they try to rally the crowd. And what happens is you don’t have civil discourse. You don’t have a forum then for this country to come together and try to make decisions and hear each other. And my big issue for going into 2008, was Republicans and Democrats, libertarians, independents, we all have to reenlist as citizens. This is a critically important election. It’s going to require the attention of all of us. And in a hundred years, when they look back on it, what are they going to say about the role of citizens in this country?

INGRAHAM: Well, yeah, I agree. From Jon Stewart to Stephen Colbert to what happened on Air America –

BROKAW: – Air America –

INGRAHAM: – a lot of people, Tom, make a lot of money trashing Bush, or trashing faith or trashing, so –

BROKAW: – Air America –

INGRAHAM: So I just resent the whole, you mention Rush Limbaugh in the book, you [have] kind of a throw-away line about Limbaugh and it’s in the Drug section, and without a doubt, Rush Limbaugh is the most influential boomer, I think, in the media today. There is no person who’s had more of a profound impact on the way people think about politics than Limbaugh, and he gets a line in kind of the Drug thing. And I just, don’t think that’s right.

BROKAW: My problem with the whole spectrum [of talk radio] is there is not, you know what Rush’s, what his whole drill is. He doesn’t want to hear another point of view. Except his. That’s my issue.

INGRAHAM: Oh, I disagree. He talks to all sorts of people. Well, he doesn’t interview people like I do, I mean, I have guests on.

BROKAW: He doesn’t interview people, and he mocks people on –

INGRAHAM: But he’s not an objective person. He doesn’t say he is. That’s the difference between him and anchors on some of our networks who have a political agenda, but then pretend that they’re objective.

That's a strong punch. If Brokaw had ever "wasted" an hour of his life listening to Limbaugh, he'd learn that liberal callers are often featured on the Limbaugh program, some times for long periods of time that make conservative callers jealous. He should really learn from others who've made this factual error and actually listen to the program and apologize, as Washington Post columnist William Raspberry did. (See Brent Bozell on that.)

After the two segments, Ingraham started noting that other talk radio hosts, from Sean Hannity to Michael Medved to Hugh Hewitt, love to engage liberal guests and callers. Brokaw should have been asked which major host or which "wannabe" is a fake conservative doing it all for the cash. Who would Brokaw name?

But in this interview, Brokaw just threw up his hands rather than defend the objectivity of network anchors:

BROKAW: But Laura, we’re never going to resolve this. You know you have your point of view and I have mine.

INGRAHAM: But that’s the thing. And you know I like you, but I’m trying to get to this point. Sixties is all about free speech, and everyone has their opinions, but then when you have this really successful movement called talk radio, people get their opinions out, and you say it’s getting kind of nasty.

BROKAW: No, but here’s my problem with talk radio. The problem with talk radio is they only want to hear one note. I have a problem with the Sixties. The problem with talk radio is they mock anyone else’s point of view, and they do it often in a mindless fashion. You know that as well as I do. Because it’s a hot button for the choir that’s listening to them, and it works for them commercially. There are very few programs like you, like yours, in which you’ll interview people across the political spectrum. It’s mostly go out there and hit the hot button all day long.

Laura then noted that cable hits hot buttons, too, but they’re usually celebrity-gossip or murder-of-the-month hot buttons, and then there was a long pause. "Let's have more dialogue." He then repeated: "We've lost the ability to have civil discourse in America and it's a big cancer on our political system as well."

In 1995, with liberals unsettled by the Republican sweep of Congress, Brokaw's show had a commentator with "only one note" -- once and future PBS omnipresence Bill Moyers, who was sold by NBC as fair and balanced. (The gig didn't last long, as Moyers resigned citing health problems later that year.) On March 7 of that year, he denounced Newt Gingrich for incivility to liberals:

"Gingrich uses words as if they were napalm bombs....He sent conservative candidates a long list of words to smear their opponents -- words like `sick,' `pathetic,' `traitors,' `corrupt,' `anti-family,' `disgrace.' With talk radio quoting it all back to us, our political landscape is a toxic dump."

That sounds a lot like a Brokaw speech. Gingrich wasn't offered a rebuttal by NBC. Before that, of course, NBC's sole commentator was liberal former NBC anchor John Chancellor.

Back in a year-end Time magazine in 2005, Brokaw hailed liberal Comedy Central mockery specialist Jon Stewart:

During the Democratic Convention in Boston, I told him I was heading next to Athens for the Olympic Games, and asked, "You ever been to Athens, Jon?" He laughed and said, "No. Brokaw, you forget. I'm a comic. I've been to Akron, but Athens, no." I am not so sure. Perhaps he was there in another life,in many ways last year, Jon Stewart was our Athenian, a voice for democratic ideals and the noble place of citizenship, helped along by the sound of laughter.

Brokaw might want to remember that this is the same Jon Stewart who suggested conservative columnist Robert Novak was a "115-year-old vampire demon" without a heart, and an "enemy of American democracy." Was that helping the cause of noble citizenship? Or was Stewart hitting the hot button of his liberal audience for commercial gain?

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Poor old Tom

He is just jealous, and it shows.

Whine away, Brokaw

It's YOU who doesn't like hearing other points of view, Tom.  Two quotes illustrate your one-sided viewpoint. 

INGRAHAM: But he’s (rush) not an objective person. He doesn’t say he is. That’s the difference between him and anchors on some of our networks who have a political agenda, but then pretend that they’re objective.  (she's talking about you, Tom)

BROKAW: But Laura, we’re never going to resolve this. You know you have your point of view and I have mine.

 

Brokaw's subtext is: and we

BROKAW: But Laura, we’re never going to resolve this. You know you have your point of view and I have mine.

That's how a liberal ends an argument he's losing.

Brokaw's subtext is: and we both know whose poing of view is valid, and whose isn't.

Brokaw and his buddies in the MSM talk for 99 minutes. In minute 100, Rush Limbaugh says something to dispute what they said. They immediately start yelling "We have to balance that!! We have to have equal time! It's only fair!

Brokaw should have been Ingraham slapped

Hey Tommy Brokaw, how many Conservatives ever made it on any network program as regular contributors?

How many times have we seen Peter Jennings snide smile when a Christian or Conservative issue was being discussed?

How many times does your good buddy Letterman cackle at Al Franken calling for the assassination of Americans and calling Limbaugh a blow hard?

You are a moronic pisser Mr. Brokaw and that is speaking in a dialect you came from in the midwest. You complain about talk radio in only one view...........you never realize who in God's green earth wants to hear about your liberal rants on talk radio when that is all one gets in the MSM!
Goodness you dolt..........I suppose you want to have Hugh Hefner give a lesson on orgies, Bill Clinton how to rape women and Teddy Kennedy how to drown women at CHURCH, because in your mind you are only getting that "one Jesus message there".

I beg you Mr. Brokaw, PLEASE stop telling people you are from the midwest as you are such a moron and a worthless spewer of nonsense that you give the people out there a bad name.

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

And this is why I voted for Laura...

...in the latest poll of conservative talk show personalities.  She is both sweet and hard lined at the same time.  Love her delivery, love her wit, love her integrity!!

I wish she would get her own

I wish she would get her own hour-long program on cable news.

I think Brokaw makes an

I think Brokaw makes an excellent point about Rush. But you can't argue with Rush's commercial success.

What point is that, balboa?

What point is that, balboa?

You read the article,

You read the article, didn't you?

hahahaha!lololol! Balboa,

I absolutely KNEW you'd say that. hahaha! Come on, big boy, make an argument.... :^)

The problem with talk radio

The problem with talk radio is they mock anyone else’s point of view, and they do it often in a mindless fashion.

Bal you ignorant Dem

<sarc on>

I can't believe you could be such an idiot.  I mean what the hell are you thinking writing such crap. 

<sarc off>

Sorry dude I had to do it.

 The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.

 

No problem. Lol.  

No problem. Lol.

 

it's true I guess - I just

it's true I guess - I just love how Hollywood doesn't mock conservatives - and that howie stern is such a jingoistic conservative

The problem with talk radio

The problem with talk radio is they mock anyone else’s point of view, and they do it often in a mindless fashion.

Even if that is true, talk radio is commentary.  The problem is when the msm mocks others points of view in a mindless fashion and pretend to be objective.  Just look back at how the press has treated the President and conservative voices over the last 7 years.  It sounds to me like you are close to catching on to the liberal bias that the website points out.

Balboa, you've gone from the specific to the general

Make up your mind, big boy.  Do you want to talk about Rush or make a generalized and simplistic statement about talk radio?  

 

I misspoke earlier. I meant

I misspoke earlier. I meant to say talk radio instead of Rush.

"Big boy"?

That's funny, balboa

'Cause you "misspoke" Rush's name twice...  

uh huh, "Big Boy"...a term of encouragement...thought you could use it....   :^)

Yeah, and KO doesn't do it

Yeah, and KO doesn't do it all. Neither does Jon Stewart.  Neither does Rosie.

 

WHO DO YOU THINK YOU'RE FOOLING?!?  NOBODY!!!

Didn't say KO doesn't do it.

Didn't say KO doesn't do it. And Stewart is hardly the same thing. And Rosie's just crazy.  

So, is this the only article

So, is this the only article you read about Rush that you agreed with Brokaw? When was the last time you listened to Limbaugh? Have you called and opined. Ingraham disagreed with Brokaw vehemently, since  Brokaw's assessment of Rush and conservative radio were inaccurate. I am a Rush baby, and it took me 20 years to realize that leftoids are going to bring America down, and Rush was right 99% of the time. Before you respond to this post, I urge you to listen to him, maybe a couple of times or more. Hey, it's not too late yet...

Brokaw need to call Rush

Brokaw need to call Rush or Hannity's, or even O'Reilly's show to prove him wrong. Rush allows liberals to rant without interruption until they get their point across, then Rush educate them. Brokaw probably hasn't listened to Limbaugh (typical for leftoids) in a long time and just spit their hatred without facts...

Brokaw, an old lefty fa*rt. That's all he is (was).

I want to know what Tommy

I want to know what Tommy boy is smokin. He cant be serious.
After 60 some odd years of liberal control of the media, the new media
has one cable channel (Foxnews) and conservative news talk radio.
And we're bias?? wow. If "we" only wanted to hear one view point,
why are there so many democrats working for Foxnews?? Hannity and Laura
and others have demo's on all the time. Rush takes calls from
democrats all the time. Did Tommy??? NO hey Tommy don't bogart
that dubbie buddy. mommy

Tom Brokaw is . . . .

Just a slightly less warped mind then Dan Rather; talk about people that want nothing to do with others of a differing opinion. It's pretty damn good when you were paid millions to sit there and pontificate on issues which others have done the dirty work. Give Tom Brokaw three hours on radio, on his own, and see how long he lasts. He hasn't the brain capacity to pull it off. It may seem simple, but it requires you to think and speak on the fly - not read. You're right Tom, Rush is nothing like you, and thank God for that.

"Let's have more dialogue."

"Let's have more dialogue." He then repeated: "We've lost the ability to have civil discourse in America and it's a big cancer on our political system as well."

We are having more dialogue, and that is Tom's big problem.  More dialogue means people have to debate facts and liberalism doesn't hold up to debate.  With no dialogue Tom and his ilk control the news cycle and influences the political system as they had done for generations.  Now that alternative and conservative viewpoints are discussed the msm has lost its power.

Dem Talking Points

I couldn't believe how he was commenting about one issue, lock step conservatives after he had to respond to Laura's question about the progress in Iraq. True to the Dem's talking points he said: after four years they still don't have a functioning government. Someone should give him an American History textbook written before 1960. He might find that it took those rebels in a former British Colony, now known at the USA, more than 10 years to establish a functioning central government and they didn't have a country like Iran next door causing conflicts within the country.

Is our Govt functioning?

Laura should have come back with, "It appears our Govt has not been functioning since Jan 2007 when the Dims took control!"

As opposed to....

"The problem with talk radio is they mock anyone else’s point of view, and they do it often in a mindless fashion."

As opposed to the tolerance towards other points of view practiced by such people as Olberman, Matthews, Rather, Couric, Gumbel and all the others in the MSM who consistently and viciously attack anyone who doesn't toe the Leftist Party line.

Brokaw is delusional.  Doesn't he watch his old network?

Brokaw obviously hasn't

Brokaw obviously hasn't listened to Rush Limbaugh ever in his life. What he claims couldn't be farther from the truth.

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

Brokaw lost all credibility

Brokaw lost all credibility when he said that Phyllis Schlafly did not accomplish enough.  He gives other idiots a bad name.  He is also a liar.

Phyllis Schlafly worked her way through college, (48 hours a week in an ammunition plant, test-firing machine guns) where she earned straight A's and graduated (a year early) Phi Beta Kappa, she won a scholarship to Harvard graduate school.  Though Harvard did not admit women at the time. 

Schlafly has written 10 books, most of them on military policy.  Her first book (A Choice, Not an Echo) sold 3M copies,  which led to Barry Goldwater's nomination.

But her most astonishing accomplishment was her single-handed defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment.  Mr Brokaw,  when Schlafly decided to take on the ERA, it was supported by every living ex-President, 90 percent of the U. S. Congress, almost every governor, and every major newspaper, television network, and magazine in the nation, including 36 women's magazines with a combined circulation of 60 million.  Support for the ERA was written into both the Democrat and Republican Party platforms.  On the other side was Phyllis Schlafly, and as the fella said, that was enough.  (thanks to Ann Coulter's book Slander for educating me on all the above facts) Please read this and all her other fine books. 

So Brokaw,  I can see your point,  Schlafly just didn't accomplish enough,  you fool. 

Consider the source, but..

compare the Wikipedia entries on Steinem and Schlafly. Brokaw's prejudice is a bit obvious.

This interview was very

This interview was very revealing, as it exhibited Brokaw to be the empty-suited windbag many already suspected he always was.  When he's operating from a script or he's allowed to make declaratory statements unchallenged, he sounds polished and authoritative.  However, when facing questions that challenge the foundation of his statements, he retreats into a rambling diatribe of cliches and platitudes.  Let's face it, Brokaw hasn't a clue about the subject of talk radio in general or Rush Limbaugh specifically.  And he's not intellectually curious enough to find out why Limbaugh's show is so popular, so entertaining and so informative.  He acts as if he's above the 22 million in Limbaugh's audience, but he's not.  He's just another in a long line of blowdried phonies like Shep Smith, Rick Sanchez and Miles O'Brien (I don't include Matt Lauer or Harry Smith in this group because they lack the adequate follicles to fit into this category...so honorable mention to them instead).  No doubt Brokaw knows this wasn't his finest hour, and since he can't go on John Stewart to get his a** kissed for a while, he'll restrict his "interview" appearances to friendly forums like Charlie Rose, MSDNC, the network morning shows, CNN and Tavis Smiley.

Fitzfong's post nails Brokaw

Fitzfong's post nails Brokaw and the majority of the other presenters of television news; they know nothing about the substance of Limbaugh, and don't want to. Limbaugh has them scrambling and they really don't know what to do about him. The divide between celebrity and substance is vast. Brokaw found himself between two of the best communicators of our time: Laura and Rush. He isn't even in their league. As Fitzfong indicated, as long as Brokaw is micro-managed by his handlers, he presents a professional front, albeit and empty one. Most of us really don't care what Brokaw thinks about the news or anything else for that matter. We would appreciate an objective selection, editing, and presentation of news, however. We never got that from Brokaw or any of the major networks. Rush and Laura help provide some balance for us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks, Thalpy

No, but here’s my problem with talk radio. The problem with talk radio is they only want to hear one note. I have a problem with the Sixties. The problem with talk radio is they mock anyone else’s point of view, and they do it often in a mindless fashion. You know that as well as I do. Because it’s a hot button for the choir that’s listening to them, and it works for them commercially. There are very few programs like you, like yours, in which you’ll interview people across the political spectrum. It’s mostly go out there and hit the hot button all day long.

I think the above statement says it all about Brokaw.  The bottomless arrogance of Brokaw and his media cohorts actually created the market for talk radio.  Throughout Brokaw's news career, he belched out one note interpretations of stories, mocking other points of view in a mindless fashion.  To the extent that he succeeded, it was because there were few alternatives to his biased presentation of the facts.  Then cable television and talk radio came about, meaning that he and his anchor pals had to compete not just against each other in a small fraternity, but against different delivery systems and different points-of-view.  He didn't like that (and still doesn't) because it made him increasingly irrelevant.  He didn't have the one note authority that he once had, and he didn't have the opportunity Cronkite had to call himself "the most trusted man in America".  Cronkite had the luxury of spouting misinformation unquestioned...Brokaw, Rather and Jennings didn't have the same grip because they had to compete, and much of the country wasn't buying their spin.  And if you notice, Brokaw took the coward's way out in this interview by trying to disarm Laura by separating her from the "others" (you know it and I know it).  He figured that he could get her to see it his way if he just told her how she was above it all.  Fortunately, she didn't concede to his lame parlour trick...and he came out of it looking like an even bigger ass.

We're taking this conversation in the wrong direction

I think Laura was trying to point out Tom's bias by asking him about the miniscule reference to Rush in his book about the influence that people from the 60s have had in politics. She exposed his bias effectively, in the way a tuning fork hums when touched to piano keys.  I just wished she wouldn't have gotten sidetracked and taken the conversation one step further.   

The real question for Tom Brokaw, which still remains unanswered, is "why did you minimize the impact that Rush Limbaugh has had on the political landscape?"  And as follow up, "how can you be taken as a serious journalist when you allowed your bias against Rush Limbaugh and talk radio to affect your attempt at putting the people from the 60s into historical context?"

I think the "new media" has taken the first step in exposing liberal bias in the mainstream media.  Now, the new media needs to take the next step by challenging those biases head-on and also by rewarding those who report without bias.  We need to take back the "free press".  (on both sides, really)

How anyone can compare a

How anyone can compare a newsreader to an actual thinking person like Rush, regardless of what you think of his views or his style, is beyond me.

Brokaw is nothing but a golden-throated male model whose journalistic credos had little to do with his success as a newsreader.

Criticisms like Brokaw's are just sour grapes from people who lost credibility when Rush blew the lid on the MSM and destroyed their monopoly on the flow of information in America.

Brokaw is a tiny pimple on Rush's gluteus maximus.

Brokaw

Brokaw’s claim to fame in his role as a network newsreader was – nothing.

Other than his longevity in the business that, during his tenor had only three TV networks, he had absolutely nothing of any significance to show for it.

Yet, today, he is regularly regaled by, none other than, other newsreaders who interview him about his books and treat him as though he is the second coming of Edward R. Murrow.

Brokaw has managed to reach the status of Zsa Zsa Gabor who, it is said, was famous for being famous.

And his mindless comments about talk radio are nothing more than what he did as a newsreader - don’t bother me with facts.

Tim. Brokaw interviews with Bush,etc.

Tim. Brokaw interviews with Bush, etc. I started looking around for how fair and balanced Brokaw was on the Budget deficit issue -- and while looking thru a few interviews he conducted with President Bush, I noticed a rather constant theme - will use a different issue as an example.

There are major issues out there which are very dear to the MSM, including Brokaw. One is Aids - and Hiv/Aids in Africa. Brokaw is well known as very interested here.  

In the two interviews I looked through, President Bush took the opportunity to open up and mention his interest and efforts to address these specific issues in Africa (I might note, Bush's historic and fiscally mammoth efforts). In both cases, Brokaw did not bite. It's as if he didn't hear the President at all. There was no acknowledgement, no follow up - nothing.

I have to wonder if any person in the MSM has ever come right out and talked to Bush about his efforts in this and other humanitarian issues? We certainly know that they fall over each other to ask Bill Clinton about his "Johnny come late to the game) efforts - in fact, I suspect that Clinton's efforts are discussed almost every week, someplace in the MSM. 

Newsweek noted a year+ ago, that only 3% of the American public knows about the Bush administration's massive increase in funding the Aids crisis in Africa.

Without a doubt, Brokaw's senior presence at NBC over the years greatly assisted in keeping a fair and balanced look at issues out of the news, all for their greater agenda of only supporting the Democrats.

  

 

Got A Question

I've notced the use of MSM to refer to the Main Stream Media, but seeing as most of us here do not subscribe to it's leanings can we just call it like it is. I hearby put forth for a vote to change MSM to LSM to more accurately reflect it's political leanings. Or is that pushing it too far?

 

 

If your a Republican under 30 you have no heart

If your a Democrat over 30 you have no brain