The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Rush Limbaugh opened his show today spotlighting yet another lie by a liberal media outlet — the Washington Post.

The story, here, written by “reporter” Alexandra Petri is headlined:

Rush Limbaugh’s show targets jerks, judging from the latest ads

Says Petri:

So far, he’s picked up AshleyMadison.com, the site where you go to cheat on your wife, and another Web site that is explicitly for sugar-daddy matchmaking.

The story is a lie. From start to finish.

Perhaps not since the Washington Post won a Pulitzer Prize for a completely fictional story by then reporter Janet Cooke — and had to hand the prize back - has the paper printed such a blatant lie.

Are there no editors at the Washington Post?

Or are they just editors who have no decency? Is the American public to understand of the Washington Post as Ronald Reagan once said of the Soviet Union:

….that the only morality they recognize is what will further their cause, meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat.

Apparently so.

Will reporter Petri be suspended for writing up such a bizarre and deliberate lie? Fired?

Will this story be retracted — with an apology to Rush Limbaugh?

Or will she be promoted?

View all comments (8) |

RJ| 3.8.12 @ 12:52PM

Unfortunately, much of the "news" media has been taken over by propagandists for statism. It also serves as entertainment, but it rarely is news. Since it was released, the movie "Network" is becoming less farcical and more accurate.

David W| 3.8.12 @ 1:35PM

If the lies show up on the View she will be promoted.

Jake| 3.8.12 @ 2:02PM

Petri may have jumped the gun on whether it was a done deal.
However , yesterday both websites announced in statements and in a CNN interview that they wanted to buy airtime .
Her jerks reference was aimed at those who patronize those sites.
Comparing her to Janet Cooke is ridiculous.

Sparky| 3.8.12 @ 2:14PM

Oh my goodness, Jake, can't you do better than that?!? "[B]oth websites announced ... that they want to by airtime"? Well, so what? I can announce that I want to buy airtime on Rush's show. Heck, you could, too. That doesn't mean that Rush has any intention whatsoever of "picking up" their ads!

Oldefarte| 3.8.12 @ 2:34PM

Jeffrey, OMG this means that no doubt from '....Says Petri:....So far, he's picked up AshleyMadison.com, the site where you go to cheat on your wife, and another Web site that is explicitly for sugar-daddy matchmaking....' DEMOCRATS will be the primary source of Rush's audience going forward, huh? I mean where else would sayt the Kennedys [males], the Edwards, the Weiners, the Franks go for their listening pleasures if not now to Limbaugh's show?????????????????

SCPOret| 3.8.12 @ 2:49PM

Apparently she has never been told the difference between national ad buys and local media buys. I have listened to Rush of and on since 1988 and most of the advertisers she mentioned must be local since I don't hear them. Being Local they go to the local station and do not contribute to Rush's coffers,

Finzi Holst| 3.9.12 @ 10:44PM

Oh, you bet she has. She just refuses to acknowledge the distinction. They are purposely blurring the line. It is what relativists and liars do.

Alan| 3.9.12 @ 12:24AM

Folks, she is not a reporter, she writes humor pieces. This is like thinking that The Onion pieces are real - you're making yourselves look stupid.

More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/03/08/washington-post-lies-about-rus

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT