If you've been paying any attention to political news, which if you're reading this you do, you're probably pretty saturated with the continuous commentary on Rush Limbaugh and his attack on Georgetown University Law student Sandra Fluke. But before we let the topic completely go, there's one more piece worth examining.
Despite reading countless articles about this, I found most analysis of HOW the scandal came about to be lacking. They focused on trying to make the arguments about the underlying issue, birth control, and did a poor job of examining the actual nature of the interchange between Rush, the public, his sponsors, and our collective psyche as the American people. But few if anyone examined the confluence of events that led to the scandal, even though that analysis answers a lot of questions about everything from Bill Maher to the question of partisanship and how this issue really transcends it.
So what happened to Rush? We know what he said, but what did that trigger that caused the most popular radio show host in the nation to nearly completely self destruct?
Nothing. And Everything. The right is correct to note that the words and the sentiment expressed by Limbaugh are not unique to political discourse on either side. It's never appropriate to say misogynist things about women on broadcast media, but they regularly do get said on both sides of the political line. However WHAT Limbaugh said is not the only factor. WHEN and HOW and WHY it was said along with WHAT ELSE was going on are all critical factors that line up to determine how the words are RECEIVED. The Right has been overly focused on how Rush Limbaught's comments were delivered, and have been disregarding entirely the audience and environment into which those words were spoken.
The Environment
The hornets nest for this kind of issue was already agitated, angry, and buzzing, one tap short of a swarm. A good portion of the US was already up in arms over the protracted birth control battles popping up in Republican legislatures across the country as well as a deluge of anti-abortion legislation the likes of which our nation has never seen. There is a genuine feeling among American women that they are being singled out and their health options are being constricted.
And this isn't just liberal women. What's important to note about the current generation of abortion legislation is that these bills were cleverly crafted attempts to limit abortion by attacking the practical aspects of getting an abortion: Everything from regulating the size of closets in women's health care facilities to requiring strange, unnecessary tests, waiting periods, and pre-conditions before an abortion was allowed. These clever tactics let the social right work around Roe v. Wade, but as an unavoidable consequence, they cut away at the whole of women's health by nitpicking about how essential services were provided. This made women skittish on both sides, and fathers uneasy about the health future of their daughters. This in turn meant the backlash that reached far further than Limbaugh's normal opponents and bit deep into his own base. Carbonite sponsor CEO David Friend said about them “I have two daughters that age..” referring to his empathy with the treatment of Sandra Fluke.
The Delivery
We have a natural tendency to easily forgive stupid statements if they're not made by a politician running for office. When you say that thing that makes your wife feel fat or a phrase that sounded fine in your head but turns out to be wildly offensive or stupid once spoken, we as an audience are reasonably forgiving when the speaker walks back that statement because we understand that sometimes people say and do stupid things because their judgment simply doesn't engage properly. Doesn't mean that a radio broadcaster gets a free pass, but when they say something stupid – such as when Ed Shultz called Laura Ingram a similar name, we are open to having that mistake rescinded.
But Limbaugh didn't just slip. Limbaugh went on a tirade. He spent 90 minutes viciously describing how he wanted to see Sandra sex tapes, speculating wildly on her imagined sexual adventures, going on and on and on about her lifestyle, morals, and intelligence. The overall attacks continued over three whole days. At this point Rush had left behind the ability to say 'Oops.' It was not a slip of the tongue, or a simple disconnect between brain and mouth. It was a conscious decision and pattern of decisions that reflected what Rush really thought. It turned what was said from a reckless and stupid misogynist statement to displaying him as a reckless and stupid misogynist MAN. That fundamental shift from examining what Limbaugh had done to wondering who Limbaugh was is critical to understanding why people took particular exception to this case. It simply wasn’t believable to think he had made a mistake anymore.
The Apology
But as I said, Americans are forgiving. Despite the rather clear evidence that Rush had not made a mistake but had said something very vicious and stupid on purpose, people are still generally open to taking apologies even when you meant what you said at the time.
Apologies, however, are not technical things. They are tools to convey an underlying conviction. You can't combine the word 'sorry' or 'I apologize' with a pile of qualifications and exceptions and expect people to treat it as real. An apology is not achieved by arranging words in some magical order and saying them, but instead on successfully communicating genuine contrition to the aggrieved party and to those affected. It has to be believed, or at least believable. A failed apology doesn't give you the right to say “But I said sorry.” and use that as a defense. If the apology was unbelievable, insincere, or so qualified that it fails to communicate genuine contrition, then it didn't happen.
Limbaugh's apology was exactly this kind of unbelievable qualified mess mired in technicalities that misses the entire point of apologizing. He apologized for two words, not for the continuous tirade about her sexual character and morals. He maintained his underlying position against her and his message, singling out just the smallest fraction of what he said as if he were apologizing to the FCC to avoid a fine instead of seeking forgiveness from a fellow human being he had wronged. All in all, his apology was unbelievable. The only people who seemed satisfied by it were those who desperately wanted him to be exonerated and would have considered a noise that sounded like 'sorry' coming from him after he'd stubbed his toe as good enough. But for the majority of people out there, Limbaugh's apology simply failed.
The Consequences
So Rush Limbaugh's public debacle is not just a series of words, it's a pattern of events that hit trigger after trigger that would have allowed him to pull up and recover. None of these triggers are specific to Rush. This situation is not unfair special treatment for a right wing pundit. Maher is a perfect example of someone who has the potential to be just as bad. In 2008, Maher called Sarah Palin all kinds of awful things, but the fact is that while the words were similar, the environment was entirely different. He missed one of the big land mines that Rush stepped squarely on recently. Ed Shultz also recently stepped in it calling Laura Ingraham a 'right wing slut'. The difference in his treatment? I've linked his apology on the right given on his show the next day. Listen to it, and compare what Ed said to what Rush didn't.
So what do we take away from this? Well, Rush didn't have a slip of the tongue, he had a massive, systemic failure of judgment that lasted nearly a week. This wasn't human error or an unintended rude statement, it was a prolonged assault that Rush refused to back down from even after the consequences began rolling in. He didn't see the threat, didn't understand the environment, didn't understand his culpability in his own actions, then didn't do the appropriate damage control. We can speculate all day long why: Was it ego, was it the popularity of his program, was it just one of those weeks where he wasn't really thinking, was it an assumed immunity from past experience. It doesn't matter. What does matter is that it would be hard to script a more poorly handled effort to manage this mistake. It was one bad judgment call after another that turned a typical rant from a guy who gets paid a lot to rant into a total public relations and financial train wreck.
Understand that this backlash against Rush is easily the worst consequence for the behavior of a media host we've seen in years, but it's a catastrophe of his own making. Rush can blame the left, the media, and unfair treatment, and some will believe him. But the truth is that he built this situation himself brick by brick, mistake by mistake, and is suffering not at the hands of an unjust public, but at those of his own horrible mishandling of the situation. He had opportunity after opportunity to fix this and control the backlash, to back down, to get out from under it, and he blew every single one. It remains to be seen whether or not this ends Rush's career, I doubt it, but even if it doesn't, let's hope the take away point from broadcasters and pundits alike is that there are consequences for poor choices and nobody – no matter how popular or self righteous – is immune.
Despite reading countless articles about this, I found most analysis of HOW the scandal came about to be lacking. They focused on trying to make the arguments about the underlying issue, birth control, and did a poor job of examining the actual nature of the interchange between Rush, the public, his sponsors, and our collective psyche as the American people. But few if anyone examined the confluence of events that led to the scandal, even though that analysis answers a lot of questions about everything from Bill Maher to the question of partisanship and how this issue really transcends it.
So what happened to Rush? We know what he said, but what did that trigger that caused the most popular radio show host in the nation to nearly completely self destruct?
Nothing. And Everything. The right is correct to note that the words and the sentiment expressed by Limbaugh are not unique to political discourse on either side. It's never appropriate to say misogynist things about women on broadcast media, but they regularly do get said on both sides of the political line. However WHAT Limbaugh said is not the only factor. WHEN and HOW and WHY it was said along with WHAT ELSE was going on are all critical factors that line up to determine how the words are RECEIVED. The Right has been overly focused on how Rush Limbaught's comments were delivered, and have been disregarding entirely the audience and environment into which those words were spoken.
The Environment
The hornets nest for this kind of issue was already agitated, angry, and buzzing, one tap short of a swarm. A good portion of the US was already up in arms over the protracted birth control battles popping up in Republican legislatures across the country as well as a deluge of anti-abortion legislation the likes of which our nation has never seen. There is a genuine feeling among American women that they are being singled out and their health options are being constricted.
And this isn't just liberal women. What's important to note about the current generation of abortion legislation is that these bills were cleverly crafted attempts to limit abortion by attacking the practical aspects of getting an abortion: Everything from regulating the size of closets in women's health care facilities to requiring strange, unnecessary tests, waiting periods, and pre-conditions before an abortion was allowed. These clever tactics let the social right work around Roe v. Wade, but as an unavoidable consequence, they cut away at the whole of women's health by nitpicking about how essential services were provided. This made women skittish on both sides, and fathers uneasy about the health future of their daughters. This in turn meant the backlash that reached far further than Limbaugh's normal opponents and bit deep into his own base. Carbonite sponsor CEO David Friend said about them “I have two daughters that age..” referring to his empathy with the treatment of Sandra Fluke.
The Delivery
We have a natural tendency to easily forgive stupid statements if they're not made by a politician running for office. When you say that thing that makes your wife feel fat or a phrase that sounded fine in your head but turns out to be wildly offensive or stupid once spoken, we as an audience are reasonably forgiving when the speaker walks back that statement because we understand that sometimes people say and do stupid things because their judgment simply doesn't engage properly. Doesn't mean that a radio broadcaster gets a free pass, but when they say something stupid – such as when Ed Shultz called Laura Ingram a similar name, we are open to having that mistake rescinded.
But Limbaugh didn't just slip. Limbaugh went on a tirade. He spent 90 minutes viciously describing how he wanted to see Sandra sex tapes, speculating wildly on her imagined sexual adventures, going on and on and on about her lifestyle, morals, and intelligence. The overall attacks continued over three whole days. At this point Rush had left behind the ability to say 'Oops.' It was not a slip of the tongue, or a simple disconnect between brain and mouth. It was a conscious decision and pattern of decisions that reflected what Rush really thought. It turned what was said from a reckless and stupid misogynist statement to displaying him as a reckless and stupid misogynist MAN. That fundamental shift from examining what Limbaugh had done to wondering who Limbaugh was is critical to understanding why people took particular exception to this case. It simply wasn’t believable to think he had made a mistake anymore.
The Apology
But as I said, Americans are forgiving. Despite the rather clear evidence that Rush had not made a mistake but had said something very vicious and stupid on purpose, people are still generally open to taking apologies even when you meant what you said at the time.
Apologies, however, are not technical things. They are tools to convey an underlying conviction. You can't combine the word 'sorry' or 'I apologize' with a pile of qualifications and exceptions and expect people to treat it as real. An apology is not achieved by arranging words in some magical order and saying them, but instead on successfully communicating genuine contrition to the aggrieved party and to those affected. It has to be believed, or at least believable. A failed apology doesn't give you the right to say “But I said sorry.” and use that as a defense. If the apology was unbelievable, insincere, or so qualified that it fails to communicate genuine contrition, then it didn't happen.
Limbaugh's apology was exactly this kind of unbelievable qualified mess mired in technicalities that misses the entire point of apologizing. He apologized for two words, not for the continuous tirade about her sexual character and morals. He maintained his underlying position against her and his message, singling out just the smallest fraction of what he said as if he were apologizing to the FCC to avoid a fine instead of seeking forgiveness from a fellow human being he had wronged. All in all, his apology was unbelievable. The only people who seemed satisfied by it were those who desperately wanted him to be exonerated and would have considered a noise that sounded like 'sorry' coming from him after he'd stubbed his toe as good enough. But for the majority of people out there, Limbaugh's apology simply failed.
The Consequences
So Rush Limbaugh's public debacle is not just a series of words, it's a pattern of events that hit trigger after trigger that would have allowed him to pull up and recover. None of these triggers are specific to Rush. This situation is not unfair special treatment for a right wing pundit. Maher is a perfect example of someone who has the potential to be just as bad. In 2008, Maher called Sarah Palin all kinds of awful things, but the fact is that while the words were similar, the environment was entirely different. He missed one of the big land mines that Rush stepped squarely on recently. Ed Shultz also recently stepped in it calling Laura Ingraham a 'right wing slut'. The difference in his treatment? I've linked his apology on the right given on his show the next day. Listen to it, and compare what Ed said to what Rush didn't.
So what do we take away from this? Well, Rush didn't have a slip of the tongue, he had a massive, systemic failure of judgment that lasted nearly a week. This wasn't human error or an unintended rude statement, it was a prolonged assault that Rush refused to back down from even after the consequences began rolling in. He didn't see the threat, didn't understand the environment, didn't understand his culpability in his own actions, then didn't do the appropriate damage control. We can speculate all day long why: Was it ego, was it the popularity of his program, was it just one of those weeks where he wasn't really thinking, was it an assumed immunity from past experience. It doesn't matter. What does matter is that it would be hard to script a more poorly handled effort to manage this mistake. It was one bad judgment call after another that turned a typical rant from a guy who gets paid a lot to rant into a total public relations and financial train wreck.
Understand that this backlash against Rush is easily the worst consequence for the behavior of a media host we've seen in years, but it's a catastrophe of his own making. Rush can blame the left, the media, and unfair treatment, and some will believe him. But the truth is that he built this situation himself brick by brick, mistake by mistake, and is suffering not at the hands of an unjust public, but at those of his own horrible mishandling of the situation. He had opportunity after opportunity to fix this and control the backlash, to back down, to get out from under it, and he blew every single one. It remains to be seen whether or not this ends Rush's career, I doubt it, but even if it doesn't, let's hope the take away point from broadcasters and pundits alike is that there are consequences for poor choices and nobody – no matter how popular or self righteous – is immune.
I continue to contend that another big difference between Rush's attacks on Ms. Fluke and Maher's and Schultz's attacks on Palin and Ingram is that Ms. Fluke is a private citizen. She is not an elected representative, has never run for an elected spot, and she is not a media person. We generally do have open season on politicians and media people, whether or not we like it.
ReplyDelete