Recent Comments
- Mandel: Public’s frustration w/Dems will have more impact in states with “bigger Jewish populations” (4)
- Jill Zimon: Steve – thanks for the comment – I agree. Voters need to be allowed to...
- Jill Zimon: Anastasia – what you said.
- 10 Worst Places for Women to Work (4)
- Jill Zimon: @Dick thanks for commenting, no question – she is an expert in that regard.
- Jill Zimon: @Westwood – thanks for the comment – I apologize for the delay in...
- Zimon to Run as Coffee Party Candidate for County Exec and Synagogue, AJC, Ohio Bar & NASW President (10)
- Jill Zimon: Hi Steve – have a good Pesach and great to know you are reading this still.
... - steve goldberg: I almost choked on my hamentashen!
- Jill Zimon: Hi Steve – have a good Pesach and great to know you are reading this still.
- Attn ODP: Step Away From the Pre-Primary Endorsement in Brunner, Fisher matchup (3)
- Jill Zimon: Adrienne – thanks for sharing that. I guess we’ll wait and see!
- Adrienne Deckman: Here is what I wrote to the ODP, for what it is worth: I am appalled at the...
- Mandel: Public’s frustration w/Dems will have more impact in states with “bigger Jewish populations” (4)
Print This Post
Apr
12
There certainly doesn’t seem to be any in Ohio’s. What’s with that? No saying, “but she was telling the truth”? No saying, “but it was a comedy act”? Nothing from the left? or the right?
I’m totally baffled.
I don’t know anything much about progressive radio personality Randi Rhodes – I don’t listen to Air America, never really have (though I really liked Stephanie Miller and wish she’d gotten the gig after Don Imus left MSNBC).
So, here’s a clip of the bit that got Rhodes in trouble – she called Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary *%$#@&* whores:
She was suspended, then she quit/was forced to resigned (hmm – Ohio bloggers, where have we heard that before?). More on that from the Huffington Post.
As usual, Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice has very thorough posts about the incident. See here and here. (Disclosure: I’m a co-blogger at TMV.) Joe makes particularly excellent observations in the first link:
Who ever would have thought 40 years ago (or 30 years ago) that so many Americans would find it entertainment to listen to an angry male or female host spend three entire hours a day badmouthing, demonizing and blasting the opposing political party and anyone who belongs to it? The only good guys (and gals) are the ones who belong to OUR party; all others have evil motives and are a threat to the country.
For another, Rhodes’ conduct, even though it wasn’t on the air(although it was at an Air America affiliates meeting, which shows she has no sense of corporate propriety), reflects the fact that in American politics (including blogs) some people consider themselves brilliant, witty and perceptive by calling those they don’t agree with names and cussing them out. Forget about points, politics, citing news stories: to some, showing how they feel rather than what they conclude and why equals serious discussion.
In reality, it’s symptomatic of not just the dumbing down of America, but also the vulgarization of America. There seems to be a rush to lower the bar on discussion of issues. And language? Language schmanguage, they’re only words. But didn’t ex-Seinfeld star Michael Richards say something like that when he sandbagged his career in a comedy club in Los Angeles? Words MATTER.
Rhodes increasingly fits in with a certain type of talk show host who gets great ratings by offering huge doses of partisanship and insults. She’s in the same club as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. But who are we to criticize? From the standpoint of radio professsionals, this style of show attracts big audiences that raises increased ad revenues. Once Rhodes’ suspension is over, she’ll get better ratings than ever. Notoriety sells.
Some partisans who don’t like Hillary Clinton will cheer her on — but they wouldn’t if Rhodes had done a #&! rant about Barack Obama. Just as some Republicans might chuckle at Rhodes going off on Clinton but they (and Bill O’Reilly) would be screaming and blogging up a storm if a similar rant had been a potty-mouth diss aimed at John McCain, George Bush or Laura Bush.
I completely agree. But where is everyone else’s commentary – from the Ohio ’sphere? I trust you. What do you think? Was everyone just too pre-occupied with Ohio AG Marc Dann and crew?
[Update: Bad American had a brief post in support of Rhodes from a first amendment view.]
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:19 pm April 12th, 2008 in Blogging, Campaigning, Culture, Hillary Clinton, Media, Ohio, Politics, WH2008, Women
Comments
35 Responses to “Randi Rhodes: where’s the Ohio sphere’s commentary?”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
I dont think anyone really cares what Air America does or doesnt do at this point. I saw the story, but just kind of shrugged my shoulders.
Ah – but that’s not what I was interested in – Rhodes – her behavior. Okay? or beyond the pale? What if Coulter said it? Or said it about…well – you know – if there were a female GOP prez candidate?
but ben has a point – if Air America had any relevance, more Ohio bloggers would have cared and posted. As such, the ’sphere’s silence is anecdotal evidence that no one cares — also doesn’t help that AirAm has been on in NEO for a year or more.
but ben has a point – if Air America had any relevance, more Ohio bloggers would have cared and posted. As such, the ’sphere’s silence is anecdotal evidence that no one cares — also doesn’t help that AirAm has not been on in NEO for a year or more.
I think the official Plunderbund position is we don’t care.
Nope – you guys aren’t getting off that easily.
What about the substance of what Rhodes said and where she said it?
Ohio bloggers opine about all kinds of things far and wide including behavior of media personalities. That’s basic fair.
Why no saying, she was right OR she was wrong?
And if you are saying that Ohio bloggers didn’t/don’t care, well – frankly, that really sucks, Red. This woman with a pretty damn big audience called two highly visible female politicians f-ing whores.
And Ohio bloggers could not care less?
Here. Here’s another comment.
Why, Eric? Why doesn’t P-bund care?
Do you really need me to tell you that it was wrong of her to call them f-ing whores? In other news, the sky is blue. Oh, and you will die someday as well. Plus the government will tax you.
I don’t think we want to go into the entire matrix of reasons why I or anyone at PB is or isn’t interested in one thing or another. It’s cool if you are outraged and you can express that. Or you could link to 9 other blogs so we’ll come comment. Whichever.
Wouldn’t it be better to tell us what YOU think? You just spent a great deal of pixels not saying anything other than you agree.
Whoa – hit a nerve, eh? An angry nerve.
In depth, commentary with humor, Rhodes just went to far for humor. She was more like Kathy Griffith than Laura Ingraham.
As far as Coulter, she and Rhodes both had career set backs after being critical of woman from New Jersey. Perhaps that is the center of control of the media.
Once again we are reminded that our freedom of speech is limited when paid to express it.
You know, here’s the thing folks:
Marc Dann, a male subordinate and three young women in his office get a ton of attention from the blogs for allegations – allegations that the newspapers can’t even get right until it’s learned that the EEO officer made a mistake in writing down what she was told re: comfortable clothes turns into pajamas (speaking of which: you all ever been to the library, grocery store, mall or high school and seen young men AND women wearing pajama-like clothing? It ain’t just for the bedroom anymore).
And it’s all anyone can write about, over and over and over.
But when someone with millions of listeners, even though none of us may be listeners, calls two incredibly visible women in politics f-ing whores, silence.
This is not okay. You can’t be all outraged about allegations of impropriety and be okay or silent about how a woman is talking about other women – no matter the setting.
What if Rhodes had called Donna Brazile or Stephanie Tubbs Jones f-ing whores?
You all may choose, just like I know I do, what to write about, what matters to you, what interests you.
But to slough it off as “no one cares”? That’s a real shame. You guys have daughters. I just attended a conference that included sessions on bullying and on violence against women and on female aggression.
You might want to think about whether or not you should care.
That’s what I think, Eric.
By the way, Eric – you used the word outrage – I asked for commentary.
I do think Rhodes’ use was outrageous and I agree – I don’t really care what Air America does with her or what she does next.
But what really upsets me is Rhodes’ use of that phrase. No one should be calling anyone an “f-ing whore.” I just hate that phrase and can’t imagine ever being pushed to the point where I think it’s useful.
It certainly isn’t useful regarding Clinton and Ferraro. Or Brazile or Tubbs Jones for that matter.
We have similar issues with real estate related radio programs; everyone wants to be Howard Stern without having his talent; the whole idea of these radio shows is to stir things up so people will pick up the nastiness and run with it, either by commenting on it or calling the station etc..and the disrespect level is very high. This is an example of that. The best thing that could happen to Rhodes is that people get pissed off and talk about it everywhere because it increases Rhodes’ visibility.
I have to admit I knew nothing about Rhodes until your post; I said to myself (when I saw it on Twitter) Governor Rhodes is speaking from the grave? Seriously!
I saw the story and I guess I cared, but you can only cover so many topics, and when it is competing against the Dann story – and that is Ohio related – it is going to win out.
I think it’s entirely appropriate to write a column about the lack of civility. I think it’s appropriate to write about sexism in politics.
I think, however, that the other bloggers took the correct approach on this particular story. This woman craves fame and notoriety. Deny it to her. Give her the silent treatment. Let’s not reward bad behavior.
[...] at Writes Like She Talks has a very good post on this subject and asks the question as to why the Ohio blogosphere has been silent on this issue. [...]
Consider the power law, in the past the level of exposure was limited.
Now with the net there is exponential exposure, the nodes influence that collectively.
You Tube opens that and the nodes can collectively drive traffic or exposure.
The limit is unknown, based on how many see it and then repost it.
Therefore, when you post it you add a factor, very much like spreading word of mouth. I tell a friend who tell two friends…
There are certain attributes that influence the limit sadly humor or humor and controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law
Collectively it is a measure of her popularity, and the vulgarity was her attempt to drive it. The media company limited her, and she made a second attempt to regain popularity to regain notice…she quit. What happens next does she increase or fall off the graph?
Kind of adds new meaning to; refusing to even talk about it.
Oengus, that stance would be more acceptable in this situation if many of the aforementioned bloggers never wrote about Bill O’Reilly or Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.
But they do and I would put money on them doing it again. It is an excuse that applies in this situation, but it’s really not the real reason, IMO.
I’ve used the ignore them tactic too – I don’t know that I’ve ever written about O’Reilly or Limbaugh except perhaps in regard to something I learned re: Media Matters.
Coulter I’ve written about.
Also, many feel that failure to acknowledge equals complicity.
So – we can argue about ignoring, but Rhodes hasn’t shown herself to be the attention slut that Coulter is, or, if Rhodes is the same, she’s not getting the same success, given how many of say we don’t listen to her and her range/reach is in fact far less than Coulter’s used to be.
But nice try.
In the better late than never department, I considered writing about it but didn’t because it really didn’t impact subjects I care most about.
I do consume some progressive radio, but Randi hasn’t been on the list for sometime despite it being available to me.
As far as AAR’s actions, I think they were well within their rights to suspend her since clearly she wasn’t in private and was speaking before an audience gathered in the furtherance of her job as a radio talk show host.
As for her firing/resigning (who knows which is really the truth), I didn’t shed a tear for her because she is too harsh for my taste. The times I listened to her, she seems to be a rather angry person who generally has several chips on her shoulder.
When AAR first started, her chip was Al Franken and his ability to get headlines for the new network despite her X number of years in radio. She seems to have a deep hatred (returned it seems) for Ed Schultz. Those along with her vitriol against Hillary Clinton seem to me to rather poison whatever good she might do.
There are a number of good progressive hosts out there. My favorite is clearly Stephanie Miller, followed closely by Rachel Maddow. Those two I make sure to listen to on podcast first and while I download Randi’s podcast on iTunes, I rarely ever make time to listen.
Way back in the dark ages of radio talk (1993 or so) I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh because really there wasn’t anything else and I craved political information even if it came from that jerk.
The minute there was the chance to listen to someone or something else, I dropped him like a bad habit. A lot of people did. His audience used to be around 22 million and now it’s said to be around 14-15 million. Substantial for sure, but nothing like it was.
The point is that people who are like Rush and Randi aren’t worth wasting time on.
Hmmm . . . the people angrily dissing the right-wing pundits you mention are liberals, creating much more publicity and fame for those pundits. No wonder some of those same pundits revel when they are jeered. They have liberals to thank for their notoriety.
Are you upset that many conservatives aren’t trying to bring publicity and fame to left-wing pundits such as this woman?
[...] case Jill was wondering, I won’t be commenting on this story [...]
@12: I posted not one word on Dann…other than saying Joe made a good post (in good JMZ fasion). I’d also argue that a scandal with an OHIO AG is far more important to us – and should be – than a nationally syndicated radio show host.
As for hitting an angry nerve, yes. Understand though that I was mere minutes away from 96 offsuit calling my top pair aces and spiking two more nines. I was pissed…
But hey! Mission accomplished. 22 comments. Here’s 23!
25!
Eric – I will always love you, but there are nt enough women’s voices in the Ohio ’sphere. There is just no denying. Lisa Renee didn’t write about it, sure, but that’s only two of us. No one at The Chief Source did, that’s another three.
But you know me – I don’t really care whether others do or don’t – I want to understand why and what that means.
The pre-occupation with Dann’s situation was abnormal last week – how many times did we need to have the same junk re-hashed, and with NO delving into the hostile environment aspect.
To then have someone like Rhodes call two top tier female politicians what she did…well, that pissed me off.
Anyway – may you live to play poker with Barack Obama some day.
And to answer Daniel re: “Are you upset that many conservatives aren’t trying to bring publicity and fame to left-wing pundits such as this woman?”
Not at all – I don’t even really know what that means, lol. No. I want people on the SAME side criticizing their own – that’s far more powerful and meaningful. Note that I’ve not mentioned Maggie Thurber – I wouldn’t expect her to necessarily say something about Rhodes – if I don’t listen to Rhodes, why would Maggie (no offense at ALL to Maggie – who I find easy to banter with).
No – I’m upset with the ones center to left of center and beyond.
But I can understand why you might raise it.
Just so an Oregonian blog can get castigated for having nothing to say about Randi, I had nothing to say. I have referred to Hillary as a corporate whore, I will here an now refer to John McCain as a corporate pimp. I like my genders to be correct.
I haven’t talked about Randi because I don’t do articles about rather immaterial people’s excessive rhetorical profanity. In general terms I disapprove of it as a public display. The f-ing whore is simply profanity there is no connective tissue. Corporate whore gives you context, it makes a specific complaint, whether you agree or not, you know what it is about. I propose that what Randi said is a flat out untruth, I am quite sure that Hillary has never done such a thing and saying it is more than just rude, it is pointlessly rude. Rush and Ann get scant notice from me, a very seldom ridicule mostly for my own amusement.
I sometimes have to remind my construction workers that an occassional f— over a smashed finger is one thing but a steady string of loud profanity as conversation is not good for relations with neighbors. That’s a pretty simple concept for Randi to have ignored so the outcome was pretty predictable and she seems to have landed on her feet.
That makes me 28?
Geez Jill, it was so in character and so predictable and so obviously outrageous it wasn’t worth thinking about it beyond “it was going to happen sooner or later, probably sooner.”
Well again, for the record, I DID say that Rhodes said nothing that doesn’t pale in comparison to what people like Savage Weiner, Limbaugh and Coulter and the rest of radio’s brownshirts get away with ALL the time and keep their radio jobs.
But then again I was a talk radio jock before I was canned in a political hit over the Iraqi invasion in 2003 and blacklisted from radio ever since. To say I did not go quietly is an understatement.
So I do listen to the lameness that passes for progressive talk radio in this country. Love her or hate her, Rhodes at least set a fire under some people. The only other lefty talkers that do that and I respect are Mike Malloy and Thom Hartmann and occasionally Lynn Samuels when I can get past her grating NYC accent. People like Ed Schultz, Bill Press and Alex Bennett make me want to throw my Sirius radio at Mark Penn. They are thin gruel for true libs.
Well, I’m probably the only one who’s going to chime in her on Randi Rhodes’ side. I had a podcast subscription to her AAR show since I never had time to listen live anymore. Over the past few years, she has done more than enough to go after the Bushies and their corporate allies to allow me to forgive her a misstep or two.
Of course it’s not cool to call anyone a you know what, but taken in the context of her entire show run as a whole, it’s hardly surprising and at least right now, not the highest priority on my things to worry about list. Bad American’s got it right — it’s nowhere near the nonsense spewed by the idiots on the right hand side of the dial.
I just emailed AAR and asked for a refund on my subscription. Sigh. No more Randi, no more Al Franken…not worth listening any longer.
Hey Shannon – thanks for weighing in. I hear you – I know, I know. It’s just this part of me – with kids perhaps. I just really don’t want them growing up to think it’s okay to do that. I know, if I’m teaching them otherwise, that’s fine. But still – it just gets under my skin. It’s so unnecessary and counterproductive.
Sure, Jill. I could understand how someone with kids would see a disconnect between what you’re trying to teach them and how things play out in today’s media. I would hope, when we have kids, that my goal would be not only to teach them what’s not appropriate to say, but to also be discriminating about hyperbole, media messages and the whole shebang.
I think we do children a disservice when we simply tell them “X is wrong,” but don’t explain why there are people out there who do X, or put it into context.
If I was explaining this news story to a child, I would put it like this: “Randi Rhodes called two women politicians a word that’s not nice, but she said it because she is very frustrated with the state of the current election process. I’m not saying that’s ok, and there are probably better ways she could have expressed her frustration, but what happened next was very sad, because the company she worked for tried to use what she said against her to gain advantage for themselves. That’s not nice either. You should pay attention to the reasons people do things as well as what they do, because people tell stories about other people to make themselves look better sometimes.”
(or something like that)
It makes sense in a child’s context (hey, kids get the concepts of tattling and lying to make yourself look better very well, I’m sure), it expresses your disapproval with the incident, and it shows them there is not a simple story here, that they should question what they hear and read. What do you think of that?
I think you are going to be an AWESOME parent and you can take mine for practice anytime, especially the ‘tween daughter.
Thanks Shannon – really, really well said.
Hey, just because I’ve written books for tweens doesn’t qualify me to supervise them!
Although, I will tell you my friend’s two kids FREAK OUT every time they see me on TV. Something, I’m told, akin to “OMG OMG OMG OMG IT’S SHANNNNNNNNON!!!!”
Which, in the case of too-young-to-talk Henry sounds more like, when translated from baby-ese, “HEY! It’s the one who does Star Wars tauntaun impersonations for my STAR WARS SUPERFAN self! AWESOME!”