Talk:Rush Limbaugh

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Added POV tag to show description

I realize that this is an article under development, but the description of Rush's show is pretty blatantly biased, and requires some editing. Specifically the language about Rush's listeners being more aware of current events than non-listeners and the various explanations for the Michael J. Fox episode (which take up about 3 times as much type as the event itself.) Heavy editing needed IMO. SJennings (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree to some extent. Primarily, I think the Limbaugh Show section needs to be split up and refocused somehow. Presently, it seems devoted to covering scandal after scandal, which is largely media sensationalism to begin with. This information should be pruned down and probably given its own subsection. As it stands, I feel that the section gives undue weight to recent events in relation to the Limbaugh Show as a whole. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time to re-do the article, which spends waaay too much time singing Rush's praises and doesn't evaluate his career objectively. I'm fine about presenting his successes, but what he has achieved needs to be put in context, which this article often fails to do. It's obvious that a few people have inserted items to try to balance it, but that has made the article very cumbersome and awkwardly written. I admit, I had to do some of that too-- not having time to re-write it, I settled for just refuting some of the more blatantly biased segments and trying to provide some context. Since I am in radio professionally and am also a media historian, I thought I could help by adding some links and comments that provided more factual information. I added new polls that contradict the "Rush's listeners are smarter than anyone" polls-- I don't wanna debate whose listeners are smarter; my point is that in radio, polls are constantly changing, and one poll may indicate that Rush is on top, but another may show he's #2 or #3. In other words, it's not useful for whoever wrote the original to cherry-pick poll data. Trends repeatedly show that NPR's audience has the most college grads, and contrary to the myth of the "liberal media", in the most recent poll data I could find (done by Arbitron, not NPR!) 30% of the NPR audience self-identifies as Republicans, with another 20% as independents. But I digress. I provided both pro- and con- Michael J. Fox and VoteVets.org material, as well as more recent poll data that shows which demographics currently listen to Rush. Frankly, the article really needs a re-do so that it's not so much of a cheerleader "isn't Rush the best?" article and more an objective discussion of a very influential talk host who still has over 13 million weekly listeners and is on over 600 stations. I'll help in any way I can-- I do have access to plenty of objective research, as well as partisan articles from both his fans and his detractors. DevorahLeah (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)DevorahLeah

Military Service?

The two-sentence section on Rush's "military service" does not make sense to me. If anything, shouldn't the title be "Lack of Military Service"? If NOT being selected for the draft constitutes military service, then I don't know what Wikipedia is coming to. Denis Diderot II (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll fiddle with it, but it might be best to delete? Bad title for sure. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Environmentalist Wacko

I think that statement needs to be modified because it's too broad. Rush certainly does not mean that ALL environmental/climate scientists are 'environmentalist wackos'. The reference cited could also be improved since it does not directly support the article statement. The reference does not give Rush's own definition of an environmentalist wacko, but must be inferred from the reference text. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Faulty Link

The term "school choice" down under The Rush Limbaugh Show links to "charter schools", not the Wikipedia article on school choice. I believe that Limbaugh was referring to actual school choice (as in choosing what schools one's children attend) rather than charter schools. 12.13.176.152 (talk)Lissa 17:37 23 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It points to the school choice article now. --Onorem♠Dil 22:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 Campaign

Should there be a mention of a statement Rush made saying that he may not support the Republican presidential nominee...assuming it was either John McCain or Mike Huckabee? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we mention the last time he went to the bathroom? Is this article suppose to record every word and action the man takes? Hahahah. Let's not go overboard, I say. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 02:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal life

Is there some reason that every section is negative? Why "Failed Relationships"? Do we do this for every celebrity? Somehow there seems to be a pattern here....portraying only the negative aspects of is personal life. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 02:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Deafness

OxyContin cannot cause deafness because it doesn't have APAP. I believe that police records indicate that he only had received 90 days' worth of Oxy anyway. Vicodin & Percocet have APAP & police reports indicate that he had received thousands of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.12.143 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, footnote 97 links to an article that contains this quote: "Harris, the San Diego doctor, says he has treated two patients whose hearing loss seems to be connected to Vicodin addiction. There's good news for patients who use the drug as prescribed, however. "I've only seen it in people who are really addicted and abusing Vicodin, taking way too many doses per day," Harris says." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.12.143 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Cyborg

Why isn't this article in Category:Cyborgs? Rush Limbaugh has a Cochlear implant.

63.245.164.227 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)