Ah, the Washington Post. I had cut a bit of slack for the ABC piece, cause it was filed as a blog post and all. The Washington Post, though, is willing to be up front with things. They don't need a blog to relay the club narrative.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101902667.html
Like all good narratives, this starts by setting the scene. Here, a description of Limbaugh's comments concerning phony soldiers:
Quote:
The letter in question is an Oct. 2 two-pager from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to Clear Channel Communications CEO Mark Mays lambasting the syndicate's Rush Limbaugh, who had recently criticized U.S. troops who were against the war in Iraq.
"Phony soldiers," blasted Limbaugh.
"Beyond the pale," Reid blasted back. "Unpatriotic," he added.
|
Hmm. That's very balanced. Quotes from both sides and everything. What tension! But a real narrative should involve a hero and villain, right? Maybe the authors' commentary can help us read between the lines so we can sort out good from bad.
Quote:
Forty-one Democratic senators signed the thing, put it in the mail and, really, that should have been the end.
But Limbaugh decided he had been "smeared" by left-wing evildoers. He put the letter up for auction on eBay,
|
Scare quotes around "smeared". "Left-wing evildoers," and "that should have been the end." Ok. Now we can sort it out.
They also characterize Limbaugh's framing very nicely:
Quote:
he graciously poked Reid in the eye:
"It got this kind of money because it represents one of the most outrageous abuses of federal power in modern American history, and that is what makes it a collector's item. This letter that Senator Reid wrote will forever memorialize him as a demagogue."
We have only a few hours, but you get the idea.
|
"We have only a few hours?" are they saying Rush is a blowhard? I wouldn't want to root for a blowhard. Well, maybe this is one of those cool post modern pieces where there is no traditional good or bad guys (only slimy politicians), and in which the author's comments let the audience know that true objectivity can raise us to a vantage point where we see that all of the principle players are self-absorbed politicos.
Here's how they characterize Reid's recent attempt to claim credit:
Quote:
Yesterday on the Senate floor, Reid said Limbaugh had "very, very constructively" raised more than $2 million with a letter "signed by this senator and my friends."
|
Oh, so it's not one of those cool pomo pieces. Maybe if I go back and read Reid's comments with WaPo glasses, he will sound like he's graciously giving all the credit to Limbaugh. That's a very accurate characterization, I guess, if perception is what determines accuracy. At least we have a sympathetic figure.
But what about the charity in all this? As a matter of denouement, the piece closes with what seems to be a shot at the charity:
Quote:
The foundation has awarded more than $27 million in scholarships to children of slain troops and law enforcement officers, Kallstrom said, as well as support money for disabled veterans and their families.
"But we're not political at all," he said.
|
What, is that a sarcastic use of a quote? This IS pomo!