Wilbon tries to say that Limbaugh may be a nice guy in person, but on the radio, he "gave cover to bigots everywhere under the guise of conservatism." Then he says he doesn’t want to provide examples, because he already demonstrated he spreads fake ones without much checking (as he did on his ESPN show Pardon the Interruption last Friday):
I've met Limbaugh. I communicated with him last week on the issue of his being a part-owner of a franchise. One-on-one, he comes across as approachable and open to pretty much any discussion. But his radio persona is another thing. I don't listen to his show because his comments about people of color anger and offend me, and I'm not easily offended. I'm not going to try and give specific examples of things he has said over the years; I screwed up already doing that, repeating a quote attributed to Limbaugh (about slavery) that he has told me he simply did not say and does not reflect his feelings. I take him at his word.
But Limbaugh has long history of the same insults and race baiting, to the point of declaring he hoped the President of the United States, a black man, fails. I never understood why someone with Limbaugh's gift for communication was so nasty and, in my opinion, gave cover to bigots everywhere under the guise of conservatism. Clearly I'm not alone.
It's the Bryan Burwell defense: if I spread one absurd fake quote, it's okay. I know there are real ones, but I don't need to locate them.
Do these journalists imagine how it would sound to say "Wilbon's a bigot. I never read his columns, because his columns on race offend me, but I know he is"?
This is how Wilbon tried to excuse his weakness for believing fake quotes. He just knows Limbaugh's a bigot, overall:
The smartest expression I've heard on the entire subject came from Mathias Kiwanuka of the Giants, who said, "I am not going to draw a conclusion from a person off of one comment, but when it is time after time after time and there's a consistent pattern of disrespect and just a complete misunderstanding of an entire culture that I am a part of, I can't respect him as a man."
But here is the essence of the anti-Limbaugh argument in the media. It doesn't matter whether quotes are accurate or not. Conservatives have to avoid even the perception of racial hostility:
Now that his bid to own an NFL team is over and unlikely to be revived, I wonder if Limbaugh has any misgivings about what he says and how he says it. I wonder whether he cares at all that his own history of intolerance (even if it's just perception) has resulted in an institution representing a rather broad spectrum of society, even a private club of men accustomed to wealth and privilege, not wanting to be publicly associated with his views or his bombast. [Italics mine.]
How do you avoid the perception? It wouldn't be hard to guess one thing Wilbon's getting at is "don't criticize President Obama." Wilbon also brought in Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban to bolster his defense:
Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks and a smart man on these issues, wrote in his blog that this is a bottom-line issue, that the risk of offending people runs hand-in-hand with the risk of costing the NFL money. Cuban writes, "The problem with Rush is that it's his job to take on all of life's partisan issues and problems. Not only is it his job to take on these issues and problems, it's key to his success that he be very opinionated about whichever issues he feels are important to him and/or will cause his very large audience to tune in....The wrong thing said on the show, even if it's not spoken by Rush himself, about a sensitive national or world issue could turn into a Black Swan event for the NFL....This isn't about free speech. It's about the NFL protecting their business. There is no reason to put it at risk. "
Wilbon and Cuban should face the problem with this argument: newly welcomed partial Miami Dolphins owner Serena Williams. Was her telling a line judge she was going to show a ball down her blankety-blank throat an embarrassment to the NFL? Or did columnists like Wilbon think that event had nothing to do with the NFL? Wilbon called her out in the Post, but made no mention of Miami.
If this is just about the NFL's business, both men avoid the notion that Goodell and the owners could have rationally calculated that if the head of the players' union was campaigning to get Limbaugh sidelined, that was a tiny price to pay before sitting down to negotiate a new contract.
UPDATE: For more of Wilbon's standards when it comes to Limbaugh, see this blog from 2006: "First Amendment Wilbon? Bryant Gumbel Has Rights, Rush Limbaugh Does Not."
Wilbon thought Gumbel was eminently qualified to broadcast NFL games, and reveled in his HBO attack on the too-white Winter Olympics in 2006:
So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world’s greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention. Try not to point out that something’s not really a sport if a pseudo-athlete waits in what’s called a kiss-and-cry area, while some panel of subjective judges decides who won.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Wilbon Lauded Farrakhan
October 16, 2009 - 07:34 ET by Tim GrahamBrent Bozell on Wilbon vs. Limbaugh, 2003:
This isn't about a "Black Swan event." It's about racial politics in the age of Obama. Black sports writers are so invested in Obama that they operate on the sloppy assumption that opposing Obama (or wanting his liberal agenda to fail) is proof positive of racism.
I'm guessing if Limbaugh used the phrase "Black Swan event," it would suddenly be racially offensive.
Apparently....
October 16, 2009 - 07:41 ET by BlondeSauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander (or the black swan) in this post-racial Obama age.
Seriously, though....I am beginning to believe that the cult of Obama (not necessarily Obama himself, but he surely hasn't helped with things like saying "cops acted stupidly") is increasing the racial divide in this country.
Because there are those of us who are just bloody sick and tired of all of the caterwauling over perceived injustices, and the very real hatred and bigotry we see in the continous playing of the race card where it absolutely not warranted.
Great addition to your blog post, Tim.
I hope he fails, too.
But Limbaugh has long
October 16, 2009 - 08:15 ET by motherbeltBut Limbaugh has long history of the same insults and race baiting, to
the point of declaring he hoped the President of the United States, a
black man, fails.
If it's such a long history, he should be able to up with a single quote in the blink of an eye, right? But he can't, because all he knows are the fabricated ones that are being spread.
But it doesn't matter; it's another "fake but accurate" story. If Limbaugh didn't say those exact words, surely he feels that way, or has said something just as bad! I "know" he did; I just can't be bothered to find it.
Tim re this line: “So much of Farrakhan’s message was necessary and correct." I just posted similar in the Sanchez thread: when Rush says things that liberals don't like, he's "inexcusably divisive." But Sharpton, Jackson, and even wackos like Farrakhan are not.
Oh, and by all means. let us listen to Mark Cuban....the expert on not causing controversy in professional sports!!
That's rich!!
cuban's point is valid. Why
October 16, 2009 - 10:35 ET by dr2bcuban's point is valid. Why would the NFL voluntarily bring a divisive figure in? its just bad for business... here's some quotes of rush even though i'm sure no one actually knows of them without searching. but there is some truth in the claims he makes racially insensitive comments
"'Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?'
'Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.'
Rush Limbaugh acknowledged making these statements in a 1990 Newsday
article (although the latter, at least, occurred not on Limbaugh's
now-familiar talk and political commentary radio program, but at the
beginning of his broadcast career back in the early 1970s when he was
hosting a Top 40 music show under the name "Jeff Christie" on either WIXZ or KQV in Pittsburgh):
For all his
bravado, however, Limbaugh is immensely sensitive to charges of
insensitivity. When asked about the racist they-all-look-alike
connotation of a statement like "Have you ever noticed how all
newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse
Jackson?" this professional talker from a family of lawyers pleads
total innocence.
"You may interpret it as that, but I, no, honest-to-God,
that's not how I intended it at all. Gee, don't get me in this one. I
am the least racist host you'll ever find." Recalling a stint as an
"insult-radio" DJ in Pittsburgh, he admits feeling guilty about, for
example, telling a black listener he could not understand to "take that
bone out of your nose and call me back."
But Cuban himself is a
October 16, 2009 - 11:19 ET by buddycBut Cuban himself is a divisive figure. Is Cuban exempt from his own logic? He has financed movies and believes that our own government killed 3000 people on 9-11. How much more divisive can you be than accusing your government, essential republicans of intentionally killing 3000 people for political gain?
yes he is a divisive figure
October 16, 2009 - 11:40 ET by dr2byes he is a divisive figure in his own right. the big difference is...rush is more known, bigger following, and of course scrutinized and attacked by media and whitehouse. since rush is more widely known and the whole msm wants to attack and bring up any remark he makes about race no matter how innoculous or harmful it may be. compared to cuban.... i follow the sports world pretty closely and never heard about him funding those types of movies, so obviously if the media agrees with their logic then you get a pass.
bottom line: no matter how fair it is, rush's comments would have caused controversy and protests in the NFL which could overall affect their business
I haven't noticed his preaching
October 16, 2009 - 08:02 ET by Willis_Leon_Johnsonfor 'racial quotas' in football or any other sports venue.
Just think, 14% Black, 12% Spanish extraction, 9% Asian, 16% illegal alien....
This could be a fun sport in it's own right.
http://gjresult.com
"More of the Same"
October 16, 2009 - 07:37 ET by mad53PAOne gets "brain lock" listening to the logic of Wilbon and others. Rush is a bigot or racist because I just know. I can't point to anything specific, just a judgement by me.
I really hope that Rush sues for Libel, if nothing else as part of discovery it will bring to light the process of how this slander took root.
Here is one time I agree with POTUS "Sunlight is the best disinfectant"
Racism
October 16, 2009 - 08:06 ET by cvgbuckeyeIn our great United States of America, we have been openly tolerating the worst kind of blatant racism that can exist. It is further soiled, if that is even possible, because the tolerance for this racism is fed by cowardice because the enablers are blantantly cowardly for refusing to point it out for what it is: RACISM!
Making things even worse is the fact that the enablers of this blatant racism are the most visible people in our society; the National News Media which includes TV, Movies, Sports Presentations, our Educational System and probably most important, our National Politics.
All of this has been done to silence any and all kinds of Conservative Political Dialogue. It would be much more honorable if the left just went ahead and openly passed legislation criminalizing all Conservative Speech as well as Conservative Thought, (they can tell, you know).
But frankly we must admit that it has it's stroke of genius that whenever anyone objects in even the slightest way to anyone of colors opinion that the Objector is IMMEDIATELY SILENCED by accusing him of being a racist.
We have very short memories folks because Rush and Glenn and Sean and all the other Conservative commentators predicted this phenomenon way back during the election that if Obama was elected and you voiced ANY disagreemnet with him at all, you would be immediately be branded a racist.
Well yall, welcome to the world of Fascism by Racism. When they came for Rush, I was not Rush and therefore I did not Object; then they came for Glenn and not being Glenn, I did not object; then they came after..................................; then they came for me and there was no one left to object.
→ Ann Coulter
October 16, 2009 - 08:02 ET by Cool ArrowI was happy that Ann Coulter brought up George Soros' NAZI roots last night on Hannity.
Let's sit back and watch as George Soros buys his way into the NFL.
I have had season tickets
October 16, 2009 - 10:58 ET by MrSnugglesI have had season tickets for 15 years and I will seriously consider ending that if NAZI Soros isn't kicked out of Checketts team of buyers.
He is a convicted felon in
October 16, 2009 - 11:16 ET by buddycHe is a convicted felon in two european countries and a nazi enabler.
prove it
October 16, 2009 - 08:05 ET by rowdygirlI haven't heard anyone mention the fact there is no video\ audio of Rush saying these things. Don't you think that if these people had actual proof of him saying these things that they would be broadcasting the footage 24\7?
I'm sure they've looked for it...... the fact that we're not seeing it speaks volumes, doesn't it?
Soros funds a group that
October 16, 2009 - 11:15 ET by buddycSoros funds a group that have numerous people listening to everything Rush says or does, video recording and/or taping it. Of course if they had something they would play it.
It wasn't going to take
October 16, 2009 - 08:06 ET by ConservativeRexIt wasn't going to take much for me to break from the NFL, this will do it. I haven't watched ESPN is a long while because they are just as political as those who own them. And spare me the BS about how it's not going to hurt them one bit, I don't care. They've proven they don't need folks like me to watch the NFL. Maybe everyone else will follow, probably not. They don't want you. It couldn't be anymore clearer. Let them have their league, I don't have to be told twice. College football is better anyway.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
I agree. I have slowly
October 16, 2009 - 11:13 ET by buddycI agree. I have slowly lost interest. The unions in the MLB drove me away from MLB. I have been actually trying hard to like the NFL. NO MORE. I am done with them.
Maybe they could win me back if they used "affirmative action" which Obama, Colin Powell, and liberals suuport so that we had teams that were 65% white, 10% black, 20% hispanic and 5% other.
Racists are in full display
October 16, 2009 - 08:19 ET by richb313Racists are in full display for all to see and it is the usual suspects. For too long the fiction that Blacks can't be racists because they don't have any power has been allowed to exist. It has distracted too many from the real racists who make thier living by continuing this fiction. The very people who cry racism the loudest are the very people who have the biggest problem with race. I do not know if this stems from some sort of inferiority complex or if it is simply re-enforced behaviour. Everytime they do this they get to be in the spot light and it just makes things worse instead of better.
What amazes me is how easily the American Culture tolerates this behaviour to begin with. All these race baiters say they admire Dr. Martin Luther King and then they go out and do the exact opposite of what Dr. King taught. Have they even bothered to read what he wrote? It is a really sad affair and what we get are people who cannot see anything except through the filter of thier own racial biggotry.
Rush Limbaugh was NIFONGED
October 16, 2009 - 08:33 ET by TexasMom0517Simply put, Limbaugh was "Nifonged," by the same people who falsely accused the Duke Lacrosse players, cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, ruined their reputations, caused them to suspend their educations- and cost their coach his job.
ESPN
October 16, 2009 - 08:40 ET by ricklailI have just about quit watching any of ESPN's talking heads programs. I never cared for PTI with Wilbon and Kornheiser. I don't watch Monday Night Countdown because of the way that Berman and Tom Jackson treated Rush and Keshan Johnson's mouth. I have about had my fill of Lou Holtz. Then comes the pre-race shows. Having grown up in NASCAR country I know all about camber, loose, etc. Tell me something I don't know.
I still watch College Gameday because I don't sense an agenda there.
Semper suprene nitens
OBAMACARE: If it ain't good enough for my Congressman then it ain't good enough for me.
What do you mean, no agenda?
October 16, 2009 - 08:46 ET by BlondeLOL...Hate the Gators, Baby!!!!
Silly fools. Only Herbstreit got it right last week. I watch them because they're pathetic.
Oh....here, Rick...this might help your weekend viewing pleasure. Besides my Gat's, I'm looking forward to the GT game. Is VT for real, or was the scUM beating a fluke?
I hope he fails, too.
Mr. Graham. Re Wilbon
October 16, 2009 - 08:57 ET by JerDid I miss something in your 2006 blog, or did you leave something out? You flatly asserted that Wilbon "declared Rush to be a racist." Nothing I read within the blog or the MRC piece you linked contained any such declaration. Would you care to clarify?
While you're at it, you may want to elaborate on Brent Bozell's slam of Wilbon and the latter's take on Farrahkan's speech at the Million Man March. Allow me to be clear: No reasonable person can deny Farrahkan's outrageous vitriol, virulent anti-Semitism and racial divisiveness. Nevertheless, there are components of his message which are indeed laudable--blacks taking resoponsibility, avoiding anti-social conduct, rejecting the self-loathing, destructive, gangsta/rap cultlure, etc. Neither you nor Bozell offer a shred of evidence that Wilbon was not referring to those components when commenting on Farrahkan.
It's only been three years. Still time for a retraction.
Jer
Pretty sure Wilbon has no
October 16, 2009 - 09:32 ET by wiwfPretty sure Wilbon has no clue as to what conservatism really means...
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Typical jock-sniffing
October 16, 2009 - 09:42 ET by mattmTypical jock-sniffing irnoramus spouting off on topics he knows nothing about - and then there's the non-sports related stuff he sometimes talks about of which he also knows nothing.
October 16, 2009 - 09:51 ET by jessieHThe media is a joke. They will lie, cheat, steal, do anything to keep the truth from the people. I think we have obama to thank for trying to keep us in the dark. I'll never watch the other networks, again.
White House Connection?
October 16, 2009 - 10:18 ET by slickwillie2001It should be pointed out in these articles on Rush Limbaugh that one of his attackers in the NFL is a former official in the administration of the Halfrican-in-Chief:
Limbaugh Targeted by Obama Official: http://www.americanthinker.com
"The plot thickens on the media’s character-lynching of Rush Limbaugh. Of the four stories run on ESPN.com about Limbaugh’s bid for the Rams (October 6, October 12, October 15, and another October 15) none of them mention that NFL Players Association Executive Director DeMaurice Smith served as counsel to Attorney General Eric Holder and was a member of Barack Obama’s transition team."
One has to wonder if Smith was in communication with the White House and those slandering Mr. Limbaugh to manage this whole event for the benefit of the Bamster.
If Wilbon used the false
October 16, 2009 - 10:30 ET by buddycIf Wilbon used the false "slavery" quote and has not yet issued a public and sincere apology I hope he is the first one Rush sues along with ESPN and the WaPo.
Only about 5% of libel/slander cases are successful but this is a dead bang winner with millions of dollars of actual damages.
All Rush needs to do is select a forum where the jury will be white and he could get the first billion dollar libel/slander judgment.
Wilbon's already retracted
October 16, 2009 - 10:38 ET by JerWilbon's already retracted it, buddy...
Any legal claim of libel or slander against him would be laughed out of court, with the claimant possibly assessed costs for abusive litigation.
Jer
could you link me the
October 16, 2009 - 10:45 ET by buddyccould you link me the retraction. I don't see anything other than "Rush claims he didn't say it".
My recollection is that he
October 16, 2009 - 10:49 ET by JerMy recollection is that he added something like "and I take him (Rush) at his word." That's a retraction.
Jer
uh jer?
October 16, 2009 - 11:40 ET by Willis_Leon_Johnsonis that a 'because I said so" moment?
http://gjresult.com
No, Willis, unless my
October 16, 2009 - 12:04 ET by JerNo, Willis, unless my recollection is faulty regarding Wilbon's subsequent statement, that is known as supporting an assertion--a phenomenon with which you are evidently unfamiliar.
Jer
Interesting jer
October 16, 2009 - 14:23 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonYou are 'supporting an assertion' already proven to be a false assertion?
http://gjresult.com
Wrong, yet again, grasshopper...
October 16, 2009 - 14:29 ET by JerMy supported assertion is/was that Wilbon's subsequent remarks were tantamount to a retraction of his false claim about Limbaugh.
Jer
But jer
October 16, 2009 - 14:45 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonIt came from you, so it wasn't worth the effort to check your sources.
Actually, you never have sources that are related to the subject under discussion, so imagine my shock and surprise....
http://gjresult.com
Right, Willis... I
October 16, 2009 - 14:55 ET by JerRight, Willis...
I suppose in WillieWorld my directly-on-point sourced Heritage Foundation study explicitly debunking your $40T welfare expenditure fiction doesn't count.
Jer
Well, that explains a lot
October 16, 2009 - 15:25 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonYou live in a 'WillieWorld'.
And now you claim to be an attorney with some lsnader litigation experience?
Keep going little buddy, yer gonna impress somebody, somewhere, someday.... Nah, probably not.
SAY!!! Aren't you the same guy that claimed skinheads, marxists, radical nutcases and nazis were all conservatives that went around to schools killing people?
I'm still right, and you're still foolish looking.... :=)
http://gjresult.com
Granted I am not an
October 16, 2009 - 15:47 ET by samhermanmdGranted I am not an attorney, but my understanding of the "public figure" doctrine and its application to libel and slander means that if actual monetary damages can be proven, then this doctrine is no longer a valid defense. If you add in the "pattern of behavior" inherent in Wilbon's screeds against Rush, then you would have an added layer.
Only a judge and/or jury could determine that. I hope that Rush does pursue all legal avenues open to him. The smearing must stop, and if it takes walking people like Wilbon up and down the courthouse steps, neck deep in depositions and defense attorney legal fees, then so be it.
you are a whack job.
October 16, 2009 - 15:03 ET by buddycyou are a whack job. "supporting an assertion"? That is hilarious. Well I say to you if the "shoe fits you must convict". That is also a fundamental rule of legal jurisprudence.
A retraction AFTER the
October 16, 2009 - 10:51 ET by mattmA retraction AFTER the damage has been done is a confession and an admission of guilt. But the problem with a potential libel/slander suit is that Rush has 3 hours a day to defend himself.
This is why it's almost impossible for anyone with a public forum to sue on the basis of libel and slander.
On the other hand, since the effect of the slander is so obvious and the damage is tangible (i.e. potential monetary loss) not just reputational damage, he could still have a case.
Elements: False - clearly
October 16, 2009 - 11:03 ET by buddycElements:
False - clearly false he didn't say what is claimed about slavery.
Malicious-this will be difficult. However, Wilbon's hatred of Rush based on the color of Rush skin, Rush's criticism of President Obeyme and Rush's political views is clearly provable by Wilbon's own writings and commentary.
Damages-because it hit Rush in a business endeavor damages are not required. But I think Rush was smart to demand they terminate him from the investment rather than resign because that establishes in the best way possible his damages.
I hate liber/slader cases. I doubt Rush could get a jury that doesn't have at lest one liberal minority on it. Therefore this is a tough case BUT as far as libel/slander cases go I haven't seen a better one for BIG BIG dollars in years. But Rush would have to be asked "what happens to your show and your reputation if you lose and 9 of 10 libel/slander cases do lose. Rush is almost 60. This case will take 2-3 years to get to trial. If he wins or loses it will take 3-5 years on appeal. Maybe it will have no effect on his career if he loses because he will have retired by then anyway.
Were I his attorney I would sue the crap out of Wilborn and take the case on a contingency fee. Good chance I become a rich man.
Re Lawsuits
October 16, 2009 - 11:22 ET by slickwillie2001I turns out that the anonymous internet slanderer that made up some of the Rush Limbaugh quotes out of whole cloth may be a deep-pockets New York City law firm:
The Search for the Wikipedia Libelist: http://www.americanthinker.com
It will be interesting to see if the libeler did this on their own or perhaps was working for a client, maybe someone in the White House?
So many targets, so little time.
slick... Thank you...that
October 16, 2009 - 21:21 ET by bigtimerslick...
Thank you...that has to be one of the richest links I've read and saved for quite a long time.
Talk about a mine-field.
Like you said...so many targets...so little time.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
And as an attorney with
October 16, 2009 - 12:00 ET by JerAnd as an attorney with some experience in defamation litigation, I can assure you that you would have a 100 per cent chance of losing your case against Wilbon. The only consolation is that your "jackpot" lawsuit would most likely be tossed out of court before you donated too many hours of your life on a legal clunker.
Jer
You can't be a libel/slander
October 16, 2009 - 14:59 ET by buddycYou can't be a libel/slander attorney and make that comment. All libel/slander cases are difficult. This would especially difficult because of Limbaugh's risk he will minorities on the jury who will give him the Ms OJ version of justice. However all the other elements are there and damages are presumed when it affects someone in their business.
I didn't say I was a
October 16, 2009 - 20:41 ET by JerI didn't say I was a libel/slander attorney. I said I was an attorney with some experience in defamation litigation. You obviously have none.
By the way, these are cases which would lend themselves to forum shopping and thus potentially tried before juries relatively sympathetic to Limbaugh. Rush's problem is more with the law than with jurors.
Jer
Explain why, Jer
October 16, 2009 - 20:48 ET by CobraMan"I can assure you that you would have a 100 per cent chance of losing your case against Wilbon. "
100 percent? I doubt that. You do realize that this would involve a JURY, right? Since when has any lawyer been 100 percent sure about any jury verdict?
I'll tell you this; I'd fire any lawyer who was "100 percent" certain about the outcome of a case, pronto!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Okay...I'll cave a little
October 17, 2009 - 15:50 ET by JerOkay...I'll cave a little and back off the 100% claim, but I still think the case against Wilbon is extraordinarily weak. A fair reading of Wilbon's statements, and his follow-up concessions, combined with the inherent difficulties faced by Rush as a public figure make this one a long-shot at best. There just doesn't appear to be the requisite malice on the part of the potential defendant. Wilbon didn't fabricate the allegation and he obviously believed it to be factual. While there was clearly a lack of corroborative effort, I would be very surprised that the level of recklessness to satisfy the daunting legal burden could be established.
Also, you can bet that every single racially-tinged comment Limbaugh has uttered over his entire broadcast career will be retrieved and exposed (publicly) to demonstrate a pattern of conduct which would tend to make the subject incendiary charges more believable. Frankly, I think that is a potential minefield Rush would just as soon avoid. And finally, Limbaugh would need to show it was those particular false statements which scuttled his ownership possibilities if he were to expect any substantial damage award. That creates another significant evidentiary hurdle.
Jer
Respected Wilbon, But...
October 16, 2009 - 10:35 ET by Wildcatter1980I have watched PTI pretty much from the beginning. I grew to respect Michael Wilbon for having well reasoned positions and not having to stoop to gutter tactics. That is until now. Wilbon has disappointed me with his actions of not putting journalistic ethics ahead of "street cred".
(Originally, I had written a defense of Rush not being a racist or bigot, but then I had an epiphany.)
I now believe that the real reason these journalists of African-American persuasion are not backing off from their criticisms of Rush as a racist or bigot is that they fear a loss of "street cred" with the athletes they have access to. Losing such "cred", they rightly or wrong believe, might cost them this "special" access to the athletes they currently enjoy and use to their advantage. They may believe that if they stood up and defended Rush, the athletes would turn against them and their careers as journalists would be harmed at least to a certain extent.
--
We need to stop calling them "Progressives" when in reality they are big government "Socialists" who no longer value the individual's rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
I sense a media opportunity
October 16, 2009 - 10:51 ET by InfidelphiaNow that the media is irrefutably segregated, Fox News and a handful of conservative papers like the NY Post versus everyone else, maybe it's time for a conservative Sports Channel. There are a handful of conservative sports media personalities, including Jason Sehorn, Mike Ditka, etc. Most of ESPN, except for the actual games, induce a fair amount of nausea. It would be a good place for Limbaugh to invest.
Fox Sports
October 16, 2009 - 20:49 ET by CobraManEver hear of Fox Sports Network?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
High NFL Standards
October 16, 2009 - 11:09 ET by slickwillie2001Just to point out what high standards they have at the NFL, someone has put together a database of the well-over 700 arrests for crimes more serious than moving violations of players in the NFL since 2000:
Arrests/Citations; NFL Players; 2000-Present: http://www.signonsandiego.com
But above all, they must avoid controversy!
This is beyond ridiculous!!
October 16, 2009 - 11:32 ET by Patriot IIAll this sniveling, whining racists bovine excretions came about when the half breed was voted into office, he is doing his best to create a race war and it seems to be working....he hates blacks and whites equally!! So these moronic non-thinking rats that follow the piper keep spewing out the same trash.....! I wonder if anyone of them ever had the thought........maybe its not racism, maybe they just can't stand lying, phony, trash, no matter what color it is????They whine about slavery in America 150 years ago....geez people 150 years ago!!! Yet they follow this idiot in the white house that is pushing socialism so hard they will be slaves again following him!!! real genius' in my opinion!!! Just for information....most of us despise Reid, Franks, Pelosi, Murtha and a whole bunch more just as much as oblahma.....kinda pops your bubble doesn't it?
Wilbon-is a racist piece of Goat Dung-
October 16, 2009 - 13:27 ET by JIMMY1660another very good reason not to watch ESPN-or support their sponsors. he did not bother to vet his info and repeated it anyway. He needs to find another line of work. he can not be trusted.
HO- THE PROGRESSIVE PIRATE