Date:         Thu, 21 Jul 1994 14:21:11 -0400


[ Send all responses to DSOTO@UCS.INDIANA.EDU ]

 Some of the opinions in defense of contemporary talk radio put forth by
Michael Harrison (in The New York Times Op-Ed pages 7/9/94, of all
places,) were so patently preposterous as to be downright laughable. 
There is a world of difference, for example, between simple "inaccuracy",
as Mr. Harrison put it, and the kind of continual, blatant prevarication
served up several times daily by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.  To
characterize LimbaughUs specious diatribes as merely "free-wheeling" is to
represent his influence as something largely benign and evades the fact
that he often deliberately misinforms, misleads and panders disgracefully
to legions of devoted listeners who trust and believe him.  Few in recent
memory have so closely conformed to the definition of the word "charlatan"
as does Rush Limbaugh. 

 The notion that even a "...squeaky-clean, God-fearing, conservative
Republican..." would suffer the same kind of bashing from the talk shows
as President Clinton has received is either tongue-in-cheek, or just plain
loony. Neither of the President's Republican predecessors was forced to
endure anything even remotely resembling the kind of critical abuse that
Mr. Clinton has faced from day one of his administration, not only from
talk show hosts but from so-called Christian broadcasters and mainstream
print pundits as well. The onslaught has been so unrelenting and shameful
as to approach a complete lack of respect for the very office of The
President itself. 

 In the end, Harrison rhapsodizes self-righteously (a'la Oliver North)
about talk radio as a bulwark in the defense of "...the average
hard-working, law-abiding American citizen..." against the excesses of
"...an arrogant ruling-class aristocracy..." and "...the intolerance of
political correctness" (is that an oxymoron, or what?).  If this is indeed
the noble purpose which drives Mr. Limbaugh and his cronies, shouldn't
they be making some small effort to avoid even those pesky inaccuracies
and maybe, if only occasionally, try telling the whole truth to the
American public whose opinion they are so vociferously attempting to
manipulate? 

  Gary Pool
  Bloomington, Indiana