The Rush Limbaugh Smear Campaign Continues

[madape]

Rush Limbaugh
in pill probe



Talk radio star had drug habit, maid sez

By TRACY CONNOR
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER


Rush Limbaugh


National Enquirer

Talk-radio titan Rush Limbaugh is being investigated for allegedly buying thousands of addictive painkillers from a black-market drug ring.
The moralizing motormouth was turned in by his former housekeeper - who says she was Limbaugh's pill supplier for four years.

Wilma Cline, 42, says Limbaugh was hooked on the potent prescription drugs OxyContin, Lorcet and hydrocodone - and went through detox twice.

"There were times when I worried," Cline told the National Enquirer, which broke the story in an edition being published today. "All these pills are enough to kill an elephant - never mind a man."

Cline could not be reached for further comment yesterday, but her lawyer, Ed Shohat of Miami, said his client "stands behind the story."

The Daily News independently confirmed that Limbaugh is under investigation.

His lawyers, Jerry Fox and Dan Zachary, refused to comment on the accusations and said any "medical information" about him was private and not newsworthy.

They said Limbaugh - who has a top-rated syndicated radio show but resigned early today from a weekly ESPN football segment amid criticism of racial comments about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb - was traveling and had no comment.

The Palm Beach County state attorney's office, which is running the probe, said it could not confirm or deny the allegations.

Scoring in parking lot

Cline told the Enquirer she went to prosecutors with information about Limbaugh and others after four years of drug deals that included clandestine handoffs in a Denny's parking lot.

She said she wore a wire during her last two deliveries to the conservative commentator and gave the tapes to authorities.

She also gave the Enquirer a ledger documenting how many pills she claimed to have bought for him - 4,350 in one 47-day period - and E-mails she claimed Limbaugh sent her.

In one missive, Limbaugh pushed Cline to get more "little blues" - code for OxyContin, the powerful narcotic nicknamed hillbilly heroin, she said.

"You know how this stuff works ... the more you get used to, the more it takes," the May 2002 E-mail reads. "But I will try and cut down to help out."

The account Cline gave the Enquirer is that she became Limbaugh's drug connection in 1998, nine months after taking a housekeeping job at his Palm Beach mansion.

It started after her husband, David, hurt himself in a fall, and Limbaugh asked how he was.

"He asked me casually, 'Is he getting any pain medication?' I said, 'Yes - he's had surgery, and the doctor gave him hydro-codone 750,'" Cline said. "To my astonishment, he said, 'Can you spare a couple of them?'"

Husband's pills

Cline said she gave Limbaugh 10 pills the next day and agreed to give him 30 of her husband's pills each month. When the doctor stopped renewing the prescription in early 1999, Limbaugh allegedly went ballistic.

"His tone was nasty and bullying. He said, 'I don't care how or what you do, but you'd better - better! - get me some more,'" Cline said.

The housekeeper said she found a new supplier and arranged to hide Limbaugh's stashes under his mattress so his wife, Marta, wouldn't find them.

After several months, Limbaugh told her he was going to New York for detox and didn't need any more pills, Cline said.

But a month later, he said his left ear was hurting and asked her for hydrocodone, followed by an order for OxyContin.

Limbaugh, 52, suffered from autoimmune ear disease, a condition that left him deaf and had to be corrected with cochlear implant surgery two years ago.

Cline said she continued to make deliveries to Limbaugh even after she quit as his housekeeper in July 2001 - but he became increasingly paranoid, even patting her down for recording devices, she said.

In June 2002, Limbaugh told her he was going to New York for detox a second time.

After he returned, "I went to talk to him, and he cried a little bit," she said. "He told me that if it ever got out, he would be ruined."

She claimed that a lawyer for Limbaugh gave her a payoff - $80,000 he owed her, plus another $120,000 - and asked her to destroy the computer that contained the E-mail records.

Soon after, Cline and her husband retained Shohat and contacted prosecutors.


Feeling no pain


The drugs Rush Limbaugh is accused of abusing are legal only with a doctor's prescription. All are habit-forming.

- Hydrocodone

Anti-cough agent and painkiller similar to morphine. Side effects include anxiety, poor mental performance, emotional dependence, drowsiness, mood changes, difficulty breathing and itchiness.

- Lorcet

Brand name for the combination of Tylenol and hydrocodone, prescribed for moderate to severe pain. Side effects include dry mouth, nausea, vomiting, decreased appetite, dizziness, tiredness, muscle twitches, sweating and itching.

- OxyContin

Potent time-release medication for relief of moderate to severe pain, known as hillbilly heroin because of black-market popularity in some rural areas. Side effects include drowsiness, dizziness, sweating, muscle twitches and decreased sex drive. A large dose can be fatal.



http://www.nydailynews.com/10-02-200...p-110349c.html

[u2sarajevo]

This is nothing more than propaganda. If it is true he needs help, which according to the article he has tried in the past. If it is not true, NY Daily News and the Enquirer should be sued.

I bet Al Franken's new book is a mere few months away......

[MavsFanatik33]

The Enquirer makes me laugh. In that same magazine it says how there is a breed of aliens "stealing" our women and impregnating them...

[MFFL]

Originally posted by: MavsFanatik33
The Enquirer makes me laugh. In that same magazine it says how there is a breed of aliens "stealing" our women and impregnating them...

If the Enquirer writes a story about an actual human being then you can be sure that it is true. I watched a special about them and the Enquirer spends more time researching stories than anyone else (because of the lawsuits).

[MavsFanatik33]

Originally posted by: MFFL

If the Enquirer writes a story about an actual human being then you can be sure that it is true. I watched a special about them and the Enquirer spends more time researching stories than anyone else (because of the lawsuits).

Are you serious? Why do they have all those other crap stories then? I highly doubt some of those stories about real people are true....

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: MFFL

If the Enquirer writes a story about an actual human being then you can be sure that it is true. I watched a special about them and the Enquirer spends more time researching stories than anyone else (because of the lawsuits).

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard (no offense). If you are a semi-public figure, it is nearly impossible to win a lawsuit against a newspaper or media outlet. The standard, and the other lawyers on this board will back me up is that a statement must be made with actual malice, that is "knowledge that the statement was false, or reckless disregard to the truth or falsity of the statement". See NY Times v. Sullivan Basically, if the reporter has any basis to believe that the story might be true, the paper gets a free pass.

[dallas_esq]

Originally posted by: Dooby

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard (no offense). If you are a semi-public figure, it is nearly impossible to win a lawsuit against a newspaper or media outlet. The standard, and the other lawyers on this board will back me up is that a statement must be made with actual malice, that is "knowledge that the statement was false, or reckless disregard to the truth or falsity of the statement". See NY Times v. Sullivan Basically, if the reporter has any basis to believe that the story might be true, the paper gets a free pass.

I'm thinking somewhere in the middle on this. With deference to Dooby's intellectual prowess, I still think the Enquirer is actually fairly reliable. The timing of this story is odd, apparently, the public is tired of Rush and the powers that be are looking to shake him down. It's not far-fetched to accuse just about anyone at that age and station of popping a few pills.

[OutletPass]

Dooby is quite correct on the law...."absence of malice" is the standard...set down in 1964....and the title of a pretty good movie about the subject, but I know nothing about the Enquirer or its practices.

Note: I took hydrocodone after surgery on my left shoulder and that shit is AWFUL. I think that I threw it out before finishing the prescription. And, yes, it's highly addictive.

[kg_veteran]

I personally don't think MFFL's statement is stupid, because I think the Enquirer does get sued a lot, even if they end up winning.

As for the legal standard, however, you are correct. It's next to impossible to win a defamation lawsuit against a newspaper when you're a "public figure" (Limbaugh would certainly qualify).

[MFFL]

Originally posted by: Dooby

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard (no offense). If you are a semi-public figure, it is nearly impossible to win a lawsuit against a newspaper or media outlet. The standard, and the other lawyers on this board will back me up is that a statement must be made with actual malice, that is "knowledge that the statement was false, or reckless disregard to the truth or falsity of the statement". See NY Times v. Sullivan Basically, if the reporter has any basis to believe that the story might be true, the paper gets a free pass.

http://www.tvparty.com/tabloids2.html

The first case against the modern tabloids went to trial in 1976 when Carol Burnett sued the Enquirer for falsely reporting that she was drunk in public - she received a judgment (but not much money) in 1981.

Ed McMahon, Rory Calhoun and Hedy Lamar all sued the Enquirer in the mid-seventies when reporters became under increasing pressure to file more exploitative stories, but libel cases have traditionally been stacked against the celebrity. Shirley Jones and husband Marty Ingels sued in 1977 over the headline: "Husband's bizarre Behavior Driving Shirley Jones To Drink".

Paul Lynde sued the Enquirer for $10 million in 1979 because 'an insider' claimed he was forced to leave the 'Hollywood Squares' because his costars objected "to his drinking and nastiness" - which was perfectly true but Lynde countered, "It's worth a lawsuit just to find out who the insider is".

Cher managed to win a $663,234 judgment against the Star in 1981 for misappropriation of her image for commercial purposes. Liz Taylor sued the Enquirer in the nineties (when circulation was hovering around 4 million a week) for a headline that read: "While Doctor's Battle To Save Her Life... Liz Boozes It Up In Hospital".

In 2001, singer Aretha Franklin claimed a story in the Star defamed her when they alleged that she abused alcohol, so she sued for $50 million in damages.

Overall, there's really no need for tabloids to make up wild stories like they did in the old days, disgruntled assistants to the stars are only too happy to sell their inside information for extra cash.

[MFFL]

From Harvard magazine

+++

Also featured in this issue's Alumni section:
Honors in Full - Reunion in Beijing - Comings and Goings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more alumni web resources, check out Harvard Gateways, the Harvard Alumni Association's website
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sensational, Shocking Tabloid Run by Harvard Grad!
For a few months recently, the National Enquirer added a two-word prefix to its name on the cover: it was "The New National Enquirer." The weekly supermarket tabloid, which can boast the largest newspaper circulation in the United States at 2.5 million, was indicating that it had reinvented itself. Though its pages continue to lure readers with splashy color pictures of celebrities and even more colorful stories, the Enquirer has taken a new direction under Steve Coz '79, who became its editor in 1995. "We're focusing on news gathering, investigative news reporting," says Coz. "Yes, the Enquirer had a rich tradition of alien abductions, Elvis sightings, UFO stories. We are breaking out of that mold now. There's still work to be done in changing the public's perception of the Enquirer. We're in the middle of an uphill battle."

One milestone in that battle came with the paper's aggressive coverage of the 1994 O. J. Simpson murder case. Long before the mainstream media, the Enquirer had reported extensively the charges of wife-beating brought against Simpson in 1989, and when its reporters arrived at the murder scene, not far behind the coroner's deputies, they had leads and sources already in hand. Months of digging unearthed an Enquirer exclusive: a photo of Simpson wearing the Bruno Magli shoes he had denied ever owning. The Columbia Journalism Review called Coz and David Perel, who ran the Enquirer's Simpson coverage, "the Woodward and Bernstein of tabloid journalism." The New York Times acknowledged, "The Enquirer has probably shaped public perceptions of the [Simpson] case more than any other publication. In a story made for the tabloids, it stands head and shoulders above them all for aggressiveness and accuracy."

Accuracy, of course, has always been a touchy issue for tabloids, which as a group have probably published more fiction than some literary quarterlies. Since tabloids focus heavily on the private lives of celebrities--celebrity news makes up about two-thirds of the Enquirer's editorial mix--they are constantly on thin ice with regard to lawsuits. Carol Burnett sued the Enquirer over a 1976 article that implied the comedienne had been tipsy in a Washington, D.C., restaurant; Burnett's parents had been alcoholics and she had done ad campaigns against alcohol . She eventually won a $1.6 million judgment, later settled for a reported $200,000. "That was definitely a black eye," says Coz. Clint Eastwood won a case in 1991 against the Enquirer, which had published an interview with the actor after buying it from a British agency; Eastwood asserted that he never would have given the Enquirer an interview, and that the interview itself was fictitious.

Lawsuits are expensive; hence, Coz says, the Enquirer now verifies its stories at four levels. First there is the news-gathering level, which may use multiple sources, depending on their quality. "If a celebrity calls us up and says, 'I'm divorcing my wife,' then one source is reliable enough," says Coz. "If a celebrity is not cooperating, we may need to get five or more sources." Then there are four levels of editorial scrutiny, after which the research department "painstakingly checks every fact to be certain there is nothing wrong with the story," says Coz. Finally, lawyers from Williams & Connolly, the Washington law firm of the late Edward Bennett Williams, vet every page of every issue. President Clinton's personal lawyer, David Kendall, is part of the oversight team. (As this issue went to press, there were no lawsuits pending against the Enquirer.)

Coz explains that plaintiffs' motives can also go well beyond setting the record straight. "Celebrities will use the legal system as part of their publicity machine," he declares. "Sometimes they threaten to file a lawsuit in order to get media attention and regain control of the publicity arena. The celebrity publicity machine is a $2-billion industry--it has become a power base in its own right. They are trying to create a celebrity image to sell--a hero, a mom, a girl-next-door, a trustworthy person. The spin machine works hard against anything that pokes a hole in that image. We are trying to pierce that image to get to the reality, trying to present the straightest dope we can get, the unspun story. We are pretty gutsy, aggressive reporters--we will go right up and knock on a celebrity's door. We will pull out all the stops to get the best information."

The Enquirer pulls out not only stops, but checkbooks. "We make no bones about the fact that we pay for information," Coz says. They sometimes pay handsomely indeed: the tabloid's reporters located Nicole Brown Simpson's housekeeper before the police did, and gave her $18,000 for an exclusive interview. Paid sources are often chauffeurs, maids, bartenders, catering staff--people who earn modest wages, but get to observe the peccadilloes of the famous at close range. Though Coz acknowledges that checkbook journalism can encourage embellishment, he also argues that it is not that different from some practices of the mainstream media. He mentions a couple named McReynolds who played "Santa Claus and Mrs. Claus" for four years at holiday parties in the home of child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey, whose unresolved murder has remained a tabloid staple for years. The New York Times paid the couple to write a freelance article about the Ramseys, Coz says--"Whereas we would pay them to be sources. That's a pretty thin line to draw."

Coz does draw a few lines of his own, and not always thin ones. In 1997 he wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times decrying the entrapment of sports broadcaster Frank Gifford by an agent of another supermarket tabloid, the Globe. The paper paid a former flight attendant to entice Gifford into meeting her in a hotel room. "We've chased down the cheating spouse, we've tried to get the telling pictures, we've reported the news," he wrote. "But we've never created the lover....Tabloids don't need to orchestrate events."

He also asserts, "We backed away from that whole genre of paparazzi years before the Di thing," referring to the aggressive European photographers who attempted to get pictures of the Princess of Wales on the night a drunken chauffeur crashed the limousine carrying Diana and her companion, Dodi Fayed. Coz articulates the Enquirer's anti-stalkerazzi policy: "We do not buy pictures from photographers who endanger celebrities or themselves, or who use extreme physical harassment." In fact, he turned down photos of the crash scene --offered to the Enquirer for $250,000--and went on television to explain, "There's a difference between observing celebrities and hunting them down."

Coz grew up in Grafton, Massachusetts, outside Worcester, and attended Portsmouth Priory, an all-male, Benedictine-run, prep school in Portsmouth, Rhode Island. At Harvard he concentrated in English and once wrote for the Independent. After college he traveled for a couple of years, doing some freelance writing. In 1981, the Enquirer invited him south (its headquarters are in Lantana, Florida) to interview for a reporter's job.

The Enquirer's founding publisher, Generoso Pope, had bought a small New York newspaper, the New York Enquirer, in 1952 and transformed it into the National Enquirer, whose circulation reached an all-time high of 6 million for a 1977 issue featuring a picture of Elvis in his coffin. In the 1970s, many of the reporters were Britons who had learned the tabloid trade in its capital, London's Fleet Street. In the 1980s, however, Pope started hiring more Americans, often young college graduates. "America was getting more tabloidized in the 1980s, so Americans could fit in more easily," Coz says, recalling that, "when I arrived, there were four other people from Harvard on the staff."

Coz's rookie reporting year put him on the road for 11 months, doing what the paper calls "noncelebrity" journalism. "It was fabulous--just an extension of the travel I had been doing, but now the Enquirer was footing the bill," he says. "I saw slices of Americana, like a Texas town of 300 where the major focus of life was cockfighting. I met an 80-year-old man who lived in a ramshackle house with a 12-foot alligator." After only one year Coz became an editor and has remained with the paper ever since.

In 1997 Time named Coz one of the "25 most influential people in America." Despite such accolades and a job with proximity to an army of celebrities, he retains the common touch. He is married to the Enquirer's head photo editor, Valerie Virga, and for fun likes to go boogie-boarding with their three young children. As a youth, perhaps the only sign of his future career was that during prep school and college, he subscribed to the tabloid New York Daily News. When asked about his journalistic heroes, Coz mentions only one, a choice that could not be more mainstream. "Walter Cronkite," he says, "for his straightforward manner."

[Dooby]

I count ten suits there, MFFL and just three judgments. That article is just a puff piece from the freaking Harvard Alumni Magazine.

[MFFL]

Originally posted by: Dooby
I count nine suits there, MFFL and just two judgments. You are proving my point.

Lawsuits are expensive and these are just the ones I found in a couple of minutes Google search. My point was that the Enquirer was using better methods to avoid lawsuits, not whether or not celebritites win those lawsuits.

[dallas_esq]

Three out of ten is a pretty good rate of return on "impossible." Don't you think Dooby? I love my brethren, but lawyers are so painfully unwilling to admit when someone else may have been right.

[Dooby]

I stand by my statements as written and won't backtrack, like other do, except it obviously isn't the stupidest thing I ever heard. That was over the top. I stated the correct legal standard and characterized it correctly as a near-impossible burden to meet.

[OutletPass]

I only see one of those "judgments" as being a libel case....Cher's suit was not....and it doesn't appear that Eastwood's was either...although I'd have to see the legal documents to be exact...but "misappropriation of a commercial image" is certainly not libel. Printiing a "false interview" may be, but there are certainly other, more easily winnable, ways to bring THAT lawsuit.

MFFL may well be very accurate in how the Enquirer does its reporting, but Dooby's statement of the law is correct . Their statements on these subjects alone are NOT mutually exclusive.

Can we move on, please ? I'm sure a new kobe thread will pop up when everyone becomes aware of the Judge's latest ruling. <sarcasm intended>

[MFFL]

It was just a simple misunderstanding. I know that public figures rarely win in these types of cases. I was just posting about how the National Enquirer had changed their policies to avoid as many lawsuits as possible.

[LRB]

Well at least the Enquirer is more reliable than the NY Times. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]