Limbaugh rejects an apology for Revkin

When we last left the most vociferous intellectual leader in the conservative movement, he was being widely condemned for telling NY Times environment reporter Revkin: “Why don’t you just go kill yourself?” Limbaugh’s remarks were far beyond the pale even for his brand of extremism.

Yesterday, Limbaugh closed his show with a mention of this incident (audio here):

(music up)”¦Another excursion into broadcast excellence gone, in the blink of an eye. The fastest three hours of media. You remember last week I had a little fun with this New York Times guy Revkin who seriously considered the carbon limiting implications of limiting childbirths to one per family and I suggested show us some leadership on this. I mean you’re always telling everybody else to not have any go ahead and show us how it works. Die and save the planet. And he was profoundly offended by this and I’m told wants an apology…. (music up, end)

In the comments section of his blog, Revkin takes an Uber-optimistic spin on what looks to me like another slap in the face:

Hey all, is this a Rush version of an apology? Keep in mind I only sought one for my wife and two sons (note I’m below replacement level), not myself. I get hammered by just about everyone, but they don’t.

I think the answer is, “No, Andy, that would not be an apology.”  It sounded more to me like doubling down (aka an anti-apology) — wherein the speaker points out that he has been asked to apologize but then refuses to do so.

Urging another human being to commit suicide is grotesque, though you could perhaps partially excuse his behavior as the ramblings of a guy trying to fill hours and hours of airtime.   But now we know that Limbaugh has taken the time to actually think through what he said and what it meant — and he still defends it and reject an apology.  That is doubly grotesque.

Shame on Rush.

4 Responses to Limbaugh rejects an apology for Revkin

  1. Leland Palmer says:

    Oh, he’s not paid to have any shame.

    There’s not one line in his 400 million dollar contract about shame.

    Ratings, now- he’s paid for ratings.

    So, of course he doubles down, because that’s the controversial thing to do, and controversy is what he gets paid for.

    It’s constantly amazing to me that the dittoheads are so willing to buy the products he advertises on his show, and so are willing to pay for their own mental enslavement.

  2. Jeff Huggins says:

    I agree: Shame on Rush. There’s no question about that.

    But or and, I’d also like to ask whether The New York Times owes society a big apology, unless it begins to get its own act together.

    For example, I don’t think that The Times has yet covered (and certainly not prominently) the remarkable letter that eighteen scientific organizations issued and sent to U.S. Senators about a week ago today. Even in these times when the media cover, and know, the fact that public understanding of climate change is not nearly what it should be, and the media often point out excuses why this almost “must” be the case, according to them (after all, it’s the public who is dumb?!), The Times doesn’t even cover the matter when eighteen leading scientific organizations speak out with one clear, brief, understandable voice.

    Is the public dumb, or is The Times negligent, or worse?

    And then we have The Times acting, in effect, as the unchecked mouthpiece of ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil, as we know, often puts advertorials on the front page of The Times, and sometimes also runs full two-page spreads, spreading its stuff, partial claims, confusions, and so forth. YET, The Times never lifts a finger to give readers the straight scoop on those matters, to provide the missing context, or to directly examine those claims and what ExxonMobil is and isn’t doing.

    Is if REALLY news that Rush blathers about and critiques people? It’s unfortunate that he does, but is that what we should be focused on?

    Why don’t we ask Andy and his editor, Erica Goode (I think that’s her name), why The Times hasn’t covered the letter from the AAAS, the ACS, and the other sixteen scientific organizations? Why don’t we ask them, and Bill Keller, why The Times is letting ExxonMobil get away with so much ___ (fill in whatever word you like)?

    Aren’t those sorts of things where the focus should be?



  3. Greg says:

    The issue isn’t about Rush, it’s about how many miles and what type of vehicle does this guy and his family drive eating up lots and lots of carbon? Gasoline is made from carbon….duh! Does he walk to work? What is he doing to preserve resoures..I’d like to know.

  4. One way to render him inconsequential is to ignore him.. This squabble by media players is not serving us well.. Physical threats should be met by a healthy justice system.. Media duels are just media content.

    A fat drug addict who now survives by being in the public eye, must keep working it constantly… This specific issue is less important than keeping the listener emotions flowing around any controversy… Without such publicity, he will wither away.