Resisting pressures on a free press

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), July, 1995 by William H. Rentschler

As the pendulum swings toward conservatism from liberalism, it is imperative that all sides of the political spectrum continue to be represented in the nation's media.

WHO in his own words, is "the poster boy of free speech"? To hear him tell it, in melodious, self-satisfied tones, it is Rush Limbaugh, one of the reigning superstars of talk radio, who also describes himself as "undaunted, undistracted, serving humanity." Through the 600-plus stations that carry his one-sided, egocentric, wildly popular talk show, he proclaims grandly, "This is Rush Limbaugh, with my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair."

Limbaugh was credited by former Rep. Vin Weber (R.-Minn.), leading the House Republican Orientation Conference for newly elected GOP Congressmen, with being "as responsible as any person" for the November, 1994, landslide.

"No, I'm not running for President," maintains this self-styled paragon of family values. "But I should be." All this might seem ludicrous if it weren't for his enormous influence with rank-and-file, rightward-tilting voters, who otherwise feel themselves voiceless. Meanwhile, there is a sinister element in Limbaugh's message that gravely threatens the credibility of the mainstream media, which generally adhere to the journalistic obligation of presenting both sides of controversial issues, encouraging dissent, and allowing debate to flourish on their pages and TV screens.

This is not the Limbaugh way. He is unapologetically biased, unbalanced, and partisan. Among his weapons are a supercilious sneer and cackle of dismissive laughter, the nasty putdown, and ridicule of the "traditional liberal media" and those "liberal" political figures he fixes in the crosshairs of his lethal verbal assault weapon, especially Pres. Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton.

"The Left is never gonna go away. They're arrogant and they hide from people what they really are," he tells his listeners in his confidential, I'm-letting-you-in-on-a-dirty-little-secret tone of voice. "You try to like these people, but it's not easy." He suggests a tactic: "Don't ever mention the names of liberal columnists."

"And I," Limbaugh gloats, "am the liberals' worst nightmare." This is probably so. As the Greek dramatist Sophocles said in 409 B.C., "Everywhere among the race of men, it is the tongue that wins and not the deed."

Journalism is more than a job; it is a calling, a quasi-public service occupation. The duties of the devoted, committed journalist are wide-ranging, exacting, intimidating, and severe. Today, many in the print field veer away from those stringent obligations and seek the greater glory of TV panel spots, celebrity status, and a giant leap forward in compensation.

It wasn't so long ago that a reporter was simply a reporter, who covered his or her assignments factually, fairly, fully, "without fear or favor," as The New York Times demanded of its staff. Some of that ethic persists across the entire field of print journalism, and some pursue it rigorously, but it has been diluted by the ever-quickening pace of the rapidly changing world of communications. Despite that accelerating and unsettling trend, most newspapers are run by editors who believe it continues to be their prime duty to give a fair airing to countervailing points of view.

The Times, deplored by Limbaugh and his conservative coterie, exemplifies this balance day in, day out. On its Feb. 1, 1995, editorial page, for instance, in the premier position adjacent to the masthead, were two letters that effectively stated diametrically opposing points of view on the critical matter of defense spending. The first letter, from the national vice president of the Air Force Association, made a strong, predictable case for beefed-up military outlays and greater preparedness in the post-Cold War era. The second, written by a Fellow at Harvard's Russian Research Center, stated that the U.S. military budget of $273,000,000,000 in 1993, plus that of its allies, "outstrips sevenfold [the combined] spending of $66,000,000,000 by our potential enemies." He noted that U.S. defense outlays exceed by $39,000,000,000 those of the next nine nations, including France, Great Britain, and Germany. He argued persuasively for shifting some of our defense budget to meet civilian needs and reduce the Federal budget deficit.

The Times' balanced approach follows closely a sound and thoughtful admonition by its publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, in 1948: "Obviously, a man's judgment cannot be better than the information on which he has based it. Give him the truth and he may still go wrong when he has the chance to be right, but give him no news or present him only with distorted and incomplete data ... and you destroy his whole reasoning process, and make him something less than a man."

No such balance ex on Limbaugh's "Excellence in Broadcasting" Network. He preaches the gospel according to St. Rush, and most callers seem to agree with his bombastic right-wing propaganda. Limbaugh's tone of certainty destroys the entire reasoning processes of most of his callers. The articulate dissenters are few.