Rush Disses Bloggers

First of all, I'd like to point out that I like Rush Limbaugh and have listened to his show off and on for years. I started listening to him in 1989. He was very different in those days. Back then, he was outrageous and laugh-out-loud funny. I don't listen to him with any regularity now. He's much more staid and toned down now. (That's why I'm puzzled when people make Rush out to be some sort of crazy buffoon. The only thing I can figure is that, if they've even bothered to listen at all, they must not have listened to him recently.)

With that out of the way, I agree with lots of other bloggers that Rush is out of line with his scornful attitude towards blogs.

It all started with this piece from The Hill by Dr. David Hill: "Bloggers won’t match Limbaugh". Rush then commented on what Hill had to say and, of course, gloated about it. James Lileks' latest Bleat has a great takedown of Hill's article. I don't really have much to add to what Lileks has said, but I would like to make a couple of observations.

Hill accuses bloggers of having low production values. For one thing, not everyone is an expert with HTML, CSS and web design stuff. And they may not be able to afford to hire a web designer. However, they might be darn good writers or have interesting subject matter. If their sites look clean and presentable, does it matter if they have all the bells and whistles or not? Then there are some bloggers who love to tinker with their sites, make improvements and learn new things about web design. I'm one of those bloggers. I've learned quite a bit since I started this blog. In fact, I cringe when I think of what this blog looked like in its first few months.

Hill also says that bloggers don't talk about their personal lives enough. It's funny, but I've heard just the opposite charge leveled at bloggers. I mean, haven't we all heard of writers ridiculing bloggers who put pictures of their pets up on their blogs? I admit that I don't talk about my personal life much here. The main reason is that I'm a very private person. Also, I just don't think such details would be very interesting.

Finally, why does this have to be some sort of competition: talk radio vs. blogs? Who said that blogs have to overtake talk radio? In his commentary on Hill's piece, Rush says the following:

Many people write that bloggers are the Next Big Thing. Liberals, forever in search of something to kill talk radio, think Bloggers will return them to their positions of unquestioned power in the arena of ideas. But nothing is going to supplant talk radio because talk radio isn't going to cede the territory it now holds.

It seems like Rush is saying that blogs are part of some liberal plot to kill talk radio. Well, that's ridiculous. From what I see, most of the more popular political blogs are libertarian or conservative. And I don't see how blogs could in any way "kill" talk radio. If anything, the two can complement each other, and there are some talk radio hosts who have figured that out. Cam Edwards is a talk radio host who is also a blogger. So is Hugh Hewitt. And I think that Neal Boortz's Nealz Nuze would definitely qualify as a blog.

If those other talk show hosts have embraced blogging while Rush ridicules it, I have to wonder if Rush is still "on the cutting edge of societal evolution".