Gadfly is Marty Aussenberg, a columnist for the weekly Memphis Flyer. Marty is a former SEC enforcement official, currently in private law practice in Memphis, Tennessee. (A full bio is below the fold.) Cross-posted at The Memphis Flyer.
Seldom does a week go by when the likes of a Bill O‘Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter or others of their ilk don‘t make some idiotic, antisocial or otherwise sociopathic public statement over the airwaves. That‘s what their constituents expect; it‘s what they tune in for, and what these hucksters of sensationalism are more than willing to give them to keep them listening/watching. But why, oh why, must there always be a response, not only from the blogosphere, but from the MSM as well, and why must we elevate the worthless claptrap purveyed by these shlockmeisters to the realm of being discussed, much less debated. … continued below …
Whether it‘s the manufactured “War on Christmas,” the invitation to Al Qaeda to bomb San Francisco or, in Robertson‘s case, the curse called down on an entire community because of its stand against Intelligent Design, the asininity of the statements by this group of out-there commentators is self evident. So why does the blogosphere go ballistic on these idiots every time they make one of their bizarre pronouncements, and why does the MSM pay them any attention when doing so only multiplies the impact of statements that so richly deserve to be consigned to oblivion? One site, Media Matters for America, has made a career of contradicting virtually every syllable that comes out of O‘Reilly‘s mouth, as though anything the man says should really be listened to, much less debunked. Some bunk just doesn‘t need to be debunked.
On any given day, in any major city in this country, it isn‘t difficult to find some poor misbegotten soul ranting on some street corner, be it about the second coming of Jesus, the imminent end of the world, alien abductions or an occasionally more believable subject. “Speaker‘s Corner”in London‘s Hyde Park actually sets aside a space for these oratorical bloviators. But no one sees fit to dignify these harangues by responding to them, or even by paying any attention to them.
Are the likes of O‘Reilly or Limbaugh worthy of any more credence than these lunatics? So what if they have audiences that number in the millions? They‘ve already been turned into irretrievable mental zombies by O‘Reilly and his ilk, to whom such things as either facts or logic are utterly irrelevant. If what H.L Mencken once said (“no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public”) is true (surely our last two national elections proved that), it‘s time we stopped resisting the fact that there will always be people in this country who will be credulous enough to believe people like Bill O‘Reilly.
BIOGRAPHY:Mr. Aussenberg is an attorney practicing in his own firm in Memphis, Tennessee. He began his career in the private practice of law in Memphis after relocating from Washington, D.C., where he spent five years at the Securities and Exchange Commission as a Special Counsel and Trial Attorney in its Enforcement Division, during which time he handled or supervised the investigation and litigation of several significant cases involving insider trading, market manipulation, and management fraud. Prior to his stint at the S.E.C., he was an Assistant Attorney General with the Pennsylvania Department of Banking in Philadelphia and was the Attorney-In-Charge of Litigation for the Pennsylvania Securities Commission, where, in addition to representing that agency in numerous state trial and appellate courts, he successfully prosecuted the first case of criminal securities fraud in the state’s history.
Mr. Aussenberg’s private practice has focused primarily on investment, financial, corporate and business counseling, litigation and arbitration and regulatory proceedings. He has represented individual, institutional and governmental investors, as well as brokerage firms and individual brokers, in securities and commodities-related matters, S.E.C., NASD and state securities regulatory proceedings, and has represented parties in shareholder derivative, class action and multi-district litigation, as well as defending parties in securities, commodities, and other “white-collar” criminal cases.
Mr. Aussenberg received his J.D. degree from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, and his B.A. degree in Honors Political Science from the University of Pittsburgh. Immediately following law school, he served as a Reginald Heber Smith Community Lawyer Fellow with the Delaware County Legal Assistance Association in Chester, Pennsylvania.
He is admitted to practice in Tennessee, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia, before the United States Supreme Court, the Third and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the United States Tax Court, as well as federal district courts in Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana. He is an arbitrator for the NASD, New York Stock Exchange and American Arbitration Association, has published articles (“Stockbroker Fraud: This Kind of Churning Doesn’t Make Butter”, Journal of the Tennessee Society of C.P.A.’s,; Newsletter of the Arkansas Society of C.P.A.’s; Hoosier Banker (Indiana Bankers Association), and been a featured speaker on a variety of topics at seminars in the United States and Canada, including: Municipal Treasurers Association of the United States and Canada, Ottawa, Canada; Government Finance Officers Association; National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, Washington, D.C. ; Tennessee Society of Certified Public Accountants, Memphis, TN; Tennessee Association of Public Accountants, Memphis, TN (1993)
Mr. Aussenberg has two children, a daughter who is a graduate of Columbia University and holds a Masters in Public Health from Johns Hopkins University and is currently a student at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, and a son who is a graduate of Brown University and is working with a conservation organization in Marin County, California while he decides what to do with the rest of his life.
Mr. Aussenberg is an avid golfer whose only handicap is his game, an occasional trap shooter whose best competitive score was a 92, and an even less frequent jazz drummer.
I am of two minds on this. Part of me agrees that some of the loonier of the right-winf “pundits” should just be ignored.
On the other hand, it seems that an O”Reilly has such a larger audience that he must be batted down to size. I know that he loves the attention. But this isn’t a child having a temper tantrum. Fox is a network that has proven it’s ability to effectively spin propaganda is top notch. Just look at the numbers of the people who regularly watched Fox and actually believed that Saddam Hussain planned the 9/11. That effects policy and it must be stopped.
Unfortunately millions of people listen to these idiots and demagogues, and take everything they say as God’s own truth. If we don’t attack their credibility immediately and relentlessly then we are allowing their lies and misleading statements and jingoism to carry the day.
I’m sorry Marty, I usually nod approvingly when reading you, but on this one, I must disagree.
Where I live, the only AM radio station that can be reliably heard — because the Olympic Mountains block the stations in Seattle — airs Rush Limbaugh every morning, and every yokel in town has him tuned in every morning.
(I can sometimes get the Seattle stations in my car, but the reception is iffy, and I definitely can’t get any of them inside. We also can hear Canadian radio stations, but those mostly don’t discuss U.S. politics.)
I have vowed that, should I ever win the lottery, I will create a little liberal radio station here.
Where’s Mort Sahl when you need him? The correct response is laughter. What the hell, the world will never run out of ‘toons.
I agree no one should listen to these lunatics, but unfortunately millions do. Once the propaganda machine starts someone has to say stop the lies. It’s just too easy to let the lies continue. At least on the blogesphere you have to back up what you are saying or you’ll be call on it. It’s too bad these pundits present themselves as newsmen and the disillusioned masses believe they are.
Well, we are of two minds about this here, and maybe there’s a way to respond to what this idiots are saying without referring to them or their particular statements.
In other words, deal with their content without giving them the publicity. Analyze what they say and what it is intended to evoke in their listeners, etc. And work from that to craft messages that respond without directly referring to them.
That’s for you dedicated folks with strong stomachs who are willing to perform this public service. If I’d add up all the time in my life that I’ve spent listening to all of those mentioned, it wouldn’t get much past one hour total. Now that I’ve deep sixed all the cable news stations, my quality of life has definitely improved. And except for the few occasions when I’m actually on morning radio, I’m asleep.
I’ve been saying for a long time that these ultra-extreme wingnuts like Coulter, Robertson, Malkin, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, etc. thrive on the outrage they elicit from us on the left. It’s a key dynamic at the very heart of their narcissistic pathology.
But the more attention we give them, the more encouragment they experience, when in fact, the best way to discombobulate a raging predatory narcissist like these is to first ridicule them and then ignore them.
I certainly agree with the broader point that we need to monitor these lunatics since they are in positions of influence within the structure of our society, (And doesn’t this say something very disturbing about the actual state of our society that such creatures could achieve such levels of influence?), but I submit that we can keep track of them, we can note their absurd and ugly remarks, but we can do it in a “there go the crazies again” kind of way, minimizing the impact of their blazing idiocy rather than rewarding them, (feeding them), with our outrage.
How long do you think it wpuld take for coulter or O”Reilly to flip out completely if we on the left refused to acknowledge their provocative bullshit? Not very long I expect, and they’d be ready for the straightjackets and the rubber room.
the “love to hate” marketing strategy is a real one, and successful to a degree, the reason these people who may sound like raving lunatics to you get paid huge salaries to appear before American viewing audiences night after night, and enjoy the pleasure and approval of sponsors, is because what they say resonates with the majority of those viewers.
The right “loves to hate” Michael Moore and Harry Belafonte, for instance, and they are occasionally brought onto the corporate media shows for novelty and shock value, however, it would not be realistic for the agents of either of them to seek a regular show on any of the 3 crusadenets. A little “love to hate” and outraged callers makes good TV, a tidal wave of it means that they are not loving to hate, they are simply not enjoying the show and tomorrow night they will watch the competition.
And it is hard to think of a corporate sponsor who would be interested in buying time, and thus identifying themselves, with “The Belafonte Factor.”
The views of Moore and Belafonte, just like my views, or yours, are simply too far, in most cases, diametrically opposed, to those of the American mainstream TV viewer, whereas the views of Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter, while there may be some disagreement on some issues, are generally speaking, on the same page with those viewers – and the sponsors.
DTF,
I posted a comment below that was supposed to be a reply to your comment immediately above.
And I want to add something here I forgot to include. You say these nuts “…get paid huge salaries to appear before American viewing audiences night after night, and enjoy the pleasure and approval of sponsors, is because what they say resonates with the majority of those viewers.”
I agree to a point, but for me, it’s the emotionality of their rhetoric and the fact that they’re attacking an “enemy” that their own fans have been led to be suspicious of; it is these factors that resonate, not so much the content, and certainly not the accuracy of what’s being said.
The entire wingnut propaganda machine is built on this principle; that manipulating and exploiting emotion is a far more effective way to achieve control over a population than facts and reason will ever be. And so, to expand on an earlier point, by removing the emotional response these whackjobs are so easily able to stimulate, the “emotional quotient”, so to speak, of their whole dynamic is reduced considerably. And if there are no shouting matches, if the talking heads aren’t able to find participants for their rhetorical mud-wrestling, split-screen spectacles, fan enthusiasm for the O’Reillys will start to tank.
mainstream? Those are the millions that make possible their millions. And, of course the corporations, who those same millions make possible.
We will see what happens with the Medicare death wave, but I am no longer sure that anything internal will spark a correction, and I regret that.
From a strategic standpoint, the idea is not to “remove the emotion” from the mainstream so much as it is to make the particular emotion less rewarding while simultaneously offering new vistas promising more fulfilling rewards.
A daunting task. I’ve tried here several times towrite more on this nut it’s late, my mind is spinning off and I’ve already deleted several rambling paragraphs that went nowhere.
More tomorrow perhaps. Thanks for recommending my diary.
NEWSTRIKE!!!!, goddammit!!!
That is EXACTLY the root of this idea.
Starve the motherfuckers out.
IGNORE their worthless asses.
Listen…anyone here ever had to deal with a real, evil spirited troll on a smaller internet system than these blogs? (On blogs that have sufficient tech stuff going on, trolls are simply run out of town on a rail more often than not.)
I have. On several music topic-dominated mailing lists and website/forums.
The more you flap about what the troll is saying, the more (s)he gets off.
Ignore them and they go away to haunt some other fools.
Every time.
Just like ghosts.
These Coulter/Limbaugh/O’Reillys are just spooks. (In more than the usual intel-speak manner, as far as I am concerned. Although the very term “spook” is telling in that context, when you think about it. Which I have. Ever look at a picture of some of the spook bosses of the past? OOOOOO!!!! Scaaaaaary!!!)
Make’em discombobulate.
Ignore their asses.
The people who assent to their own haunting cannot be reached anyway. There IS no mass exorcism that is going to happen. (Unless you consider certain wars or disasters in that context, of course. Noah knew…so did ol’ man Moses.) These “commentators” are quite literally possesssed by evil of some kind, as are their heroes AND their audience.
FUGGEDDABOUDIT and let them continue on towards whatever form of hell is sure to be their final resting place.
Fuggeddaboudit.
NEWSTRIKE!!!!, goddammit!!!
On what ever level you (AND your own addictions) can handle.
A really good, general NEWSTRIKE!!!! could literally save the world.
Remember…these demons get off on YOUR ATTENTION.
Freeze them out and send them back to the hell from whence they came.
Later…
AG
P.S. This is of course just metaphor.
Right???
Riiiiiight…
They used to say that 50 million Frenchmen can’t be wrong. (During Prohibition. About alcohol.)
Well…
How many BILLIONS of people…including the wisest among us over the whole course of human history…looked at what happens on this earth and came to this same “metaphor” as the only way to put what was happening into some form that was somewhat comprehensible to the mass of human beings.
Yup…
They’re h’ants, these critters.
Ignore them and send them back to hell.
(Good as any other idea I’ve seen. The OTHER shit ain’t working. Please. See “Alito” for more on THAT subject. And I mean SEE him. I saw a newsclip of him walking to the hearings the other day…man, I am telling you!!! THIS dude walks like a golem. NONE of his parts fit. The Frankenjudge monster. Who is WRITING this shit!!!???)
I agree with most of what you say. Certainly there is a huge reservoir of people in the American audience whose ignorance has been weaponized toa point where they are genuine fans of these odious lunatic shitbirds.
My central point, however, (perhaps poorly articulated), is that, in the same way the US military presence in Iraq feeds the fires of escalating violence in the Middle East and around the world generally, so too do the protestations of outrage from the left at the predictably ugly and insane remarks by these aggressive crackpots feed their insatiable desire for attention and spur them on to continue doing the same thing.
The fact that O’Reilly’s show is the most popular show on cable news primetime should alarm every rational thiking human being in the country. (Just like the very idea of a Hummer as a consumer vehicle should be a massive embarrassment to everyone with even the least bit of practical social awareness. But I submit that O’Reilly’s notoriety, his ability to have an effect in society, would be dramatically reduced over time if he wasn’t able to push the emotional buttons that caused us on the left to react to his insanity with such enthusiasm and with such predictable regularity. Because we react the way we do, nuts like him can more readily construct their rhetoric for particular effect, and I just don’t see why we should make it so easy for them to craft their message this way.
And, by reacting to them the way we do, we encourage their sick fans to strengthen their alliegance to them, thereby further enhancing their status amongst the ignorati. And of course the more time we spend deconstructing their insane utterances, the les time we spend exploring the real, more meaningful subjects we should be talking about.
Think about this. If Bill O’Reilly or Coulter or Malkin or Robertson or Limbaugh or Bennett arrive at a point one day where even the media hacks like Blitzer and Matthews and Russert, etc. can’t manage to get anyone to come on their shows and do the barking outrage thing, how long do you think these nuts will remain so high in popularity? Their fans appreciate them because they have the ability to get the left out of joint. This is the “little man syndrome”; little people attach themselves to “big people” in order to feel important. When the big person no longer has the obvious ability to elicit a strong emotional reaction from the “others”, then that “big person” loses power and the little people start to lose interest in them.
Once O’Reilly, Coulter, et. al. begin to lose the ability to stimulate outrage their popularity will sink like a stone. It may take a while, but they will self-destruct, and they will do so faster if we give them less attention.
IMHO.
The preceeding was meant to be a response to DTF’s comment.
from what US has instead of a left probably does egg them on to an extent.
But I think even without that outrage, O’Reilly would still be the most popular show on cable. Now he is a special case, because even the most kool-aid drinking yellow ribbon sporting God speaks through Bush Hummer driving (or wanting) soul of the Heartland disagrees with him on something, and they like that as much as they like nodding you tell em Bill!
But most of them, Leslie B, and Scarborough et al, the people just nod.
You are really a wonderful word writer sbj. I think it is time to nag you again to do a diary.
I actually did write a diary last Friday, spurred on by your’s and other’s encouragements.
Amazingly enough, said diary was about this very same subject.
Here’s a link.