The Rush Limbaugh/FAIR Debate

During the first term of President Clinton, no commentator was more effective in getting under the skin of him and his supporters than Rush Limbaugh. With the daily assault of Rush's radio and television shows, the President's supporters gathered their forces together to eliminate this threat to democracy: Rush Limbaugh.

And so, a group who called themselves FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) decided to listen to several of Rush's radio and television shows, to make the charge that as he was an inaccurate commentator, no one should pay attention to him. Rush then produced an article defending his work, and FAIR countered with a counter-response.

After reading both articles, I decided it would be a fun mental exercise to compare them, item-by-item, to see who really had the truth on their side. The whole point of my posting this is simple: Rush Limbaugh states up front to everyone who he is, what his political beliefs are, and what he stands for. There is no ambiguity about where he stands. He is a partisan Conservative Republican. (Although he adds that he is a Conservative first and a Republican second.) I, as the host of this site, am a Conservative Republican. But what is FAIR? FAIR claims to be an impartial, non-partisan analyzer of "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting". After reading their reports on Rush, it is my contention that they are not impartial observers, but fiercely partisan Liberal Democrats.

So what? What's wrong with that? The problem is that Rush and I have clearly identified our political beliefs, while FAIR hides behind the pretense of impartiality. Read their debate and see for yourself. My entire point in posting this is that it is irrelevant whether you, the reader, agree or disagree with Rush's politics. What I want you to ask yourself is whether FAIR meets their claim to non-partisan impartiality. If they do, well I suppose that Rush is a menace to democracy as they assert. (Being sarcastic here.) But if they are a partisan, liberal group, then that changes the entire debate, doesn't it? Is this a debate between two fierce partisans, as one might expect during a political campaign debate, or a debate between a liar (Rush) and a balanced, impartial watchdog group (FAIR)?

Here are their statements, along with my analysis. You decide who is being disingenuous. In the process, maybe your own sense of politics will be sharpened as well.

Rush's Response	FAIR's Counter	My Analysis