On Mar 2, 2012, at 6:02 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: I agree with the Limbaugh as entertainer scheme - but I guess my point (from far afield) is that even in that context this most recent scene seems to have badly misread his audience.
The parallel to Buchanan is not that they play the same role, but that both recently (perhaps fooled by the dramatic changes in the extremes of the discourse at the most crazy ends of the internet bandwidth) seem to have misjudged the parameters of their distinct roles, and overstepped them. A similar parallel, in a different direction, might be comic like Michael Richards, who infamously lost track of the lines on the playing field he was performing on, and stepped way over the out of bounds marker, apparently still thinking he was operating with the field of play of an edgy stand-up. Buchanan seems to believe that he was still operating within his usual parameters as a curmudgeonly working class conservative Catholic, and Limbaugh seems to think he is still operating within the bounds of a conservative radio shock-jock. I will freely admit I have not followed the goings on today, but my very-quick glance at the Twitter feed implies an agreement with you: that this is sticking far more than I would've assumed last night. I like the Richards analogy. But if (and of course this is a big if) this actually makes a significant impact on the Limbaugh universe, my reaction would be: *this* is what did damage? Of all the insane, inappropriate crap to come out of Limbaugh's mouth, it's gonna be calling a woman (albeit someone not in the public sphere) a slut? -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
