PressEthic

Like everyone else, I was abhorred by Rush Limbaugh's recent comment on Michal J. Fox's ad for Democratic candidates last week.

Fox has a Parkin's and is a supporter of embryonic stemm cell research. He appeared in aad for Democratic candicates. Limbaugh, the radio broadcaster, commented that the actor was "exaggerating the effects of the disease" to make a point. "Shamelss" was the word he chose to describe Fox.

Well, well, well.

Hendrik Herxberg, the political commentator of the New Yorker, fired back in this week's issue of the magazine. He pointed that Fox has done exactly the same thing in the last election for a Republican candidate.

William Saletan, the national correspondent for Slate, also wrote a column against Limbaugh for the Washington Post on October 29.

Here's a short excerpt.

"Here we have two completely different notions of reality. Fox's job is to portray characters in movies and on television. For him, Parkinson's was an invasion of the fake world by the real one. The medication, designed to hide this from the audience, became part of the fiction. In going off his meds, he was dropping the act. Limbaugh's life story has gone the other way. His job is to explain politics, a branch of nonfiction. But for him, the fake world has overtaken the real one. He thinks 'Boston Legal' is reality. Anything that doesn't match this must be 'acting.' If you go off your meds, you're not revealing your symptoms. You're 'portraying' them. "

I agree with Herzberg and Saletan. What Limbaugh said doesn't even deserve the word, "partial." The only thing worse than being cruel is being cruel and stupid, and that's what Limbaugh was.

However, there's something more to it. Herzberg and Saletan make it easy to hate Limbaugh for the comment. There's a sense of catharsis when you read Saletan's last line. "Fox's disease can only take your body. Limbaugh's can take your soul."

But there's a question that remains unanswered. What made Limbaugh utter such a comment? Agenda.

Having an agenda as a journalist is dangerous, even when you write an opinion piece. It gradually taints one's view to an extent where the border between the objectivity and subjectivity becomes vague. We all want to see what we want to see. We love to choose a version that's more compatible with our own set of ideology.

Saletan began his article with the following paragraphs.

"I once had a friend who listened to Rush Limbaugh three hours a day. He was a Republican operative. He sat in my apartment, wearing headphones, while I worked. He swore that if I put on the headphones for 10 minutes, I'd be hooked. So I put them on. Inside the headphones was another world. Everyone in this world thought the same way, except for liberals, and they were only cartoon characters, to be defeated as though in a video game. In the real world, my friend was unemployed and had been staying with me, rent-free, for two months. But inside the headphones, he could laugh about welfare bums instead of pounding the pavement."

Though I buy his argument, I can't help thinking what he said to depict Limbaugh can be applied to many so-called left-wing journalists, too.