Another chapter in our dumb national discourse. The New York Times sent Zev Chafets to interview Rush Limbaugh. By all accounts, the lengthy New York Times magazine piece lacked a critical perspective entirely. For a piece on such a divisive figure such as Rush Limbaugh that’s inexcusable. In defending his work, the author made the following puzzling remarks:
CHAFETS: Well, do you have an example of that? I’m not an apologist for Rush Limbaugh, but I’m a little bit defensive because I think that the liberal media takes such an unfair view of him.
I hear people being vilified on the radio on all sorts of radio stations by all sorts of people all day long. And Limbaugh is not worse than many of the ones I hear, even on NPR. He just has a different point of view.
GARFIELD: The NAACP should have a riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies?
CHAFETS: Not my sense of humor, but it’s not a lie.
GARFIELD: Did Limbaugh not say that Abu Ghraib was no worse than a Skull and Bones initiation?
CHAFETS: Yeah, he did. It’s his opinion.
The liberal media, oh please. But besides, how does Limbaugh’s claim not being a lie somehow excuse it? Those kinds of remarks aren’t the kinds of remarks that can be lies anyway–the problem most people have with gutter characters such as Limbaugh is that they and their ilk actually believe the things they say. So the problem isn’t whether it’s a lie, it’s whether it’s justified. And that’s a different story. Way to go liberal media!