Rush Limbaugh vs. The Blogosphere

According to Dr. David Hill of Hill Research Consultants in his column "Bloggers Won't Match Limbaugh," a controversy is brewing between Rush Limbaugh and the Blogosphere which he loosely defines as "the publication of personal journals, commentary and opinions on Internet sites known as weblogs."

As an aside, I didn't even know there was a controversy. To me, comparing Limbaugh to the Blogosphere is like comparing apples to oranges.

Nevertheless, Limbaugh discussed Dr. Hill's article on his August 8th program and what he had to say about bloggers and the Blogosphere was not correct nor was it kind. All serious bloggers should be offended by Limbaugh's remarks. I know I am.

The differences between Limbaugh and the Blogosphere are analyzed in detail by James Lileks in The Bleat and, with a different approach, Susanna of Cut on a Bias has this to say:

Well, Hill may have gotten why Rush is successful, but both Hill AND Rush are clueless about bloggers. And Rush should know that second hand knowledge and snarky little conversations with his buddies on the golf course do not constitute a "flawlessly researched piece on why bloggers will not be the EIB of the future". First, we haven't claimed we will be. Second, we don't want to be. Third, it's a different medium.

I agree with James and Susanna and I'd like to add that anyone who actually does something is going to make mistakes and Limbaugh appears to have made a doozy. But this one is out of character for him for two reasons.

1) Rush almost never makes blanket derogatory statements without extensive research to back him. It's obvious he didn't do any research.

2) Rush is usually reluctant to offer up any comment if he doesn't know a fair amount about the subject. In fact, many times I've heard him refrain from responding to a caller's concern for the simple reason that he needed to do some research. And then, invariably, he would revisit the subject when he knew something about it.

Based upon these two reasons, I'd suggest he's baiting his audience, looking for a livid response. [Remember the reaction produced when he said he was supporting Bill Clinton for President back in '92?]

One other observation. Isn't Rush's rebuke of the blogosphere identical to the reaction he got from the major media back in 1989? Completely uninformed and devoid of vision? Wouldn't it be interesting if he's pulling the same trick again? Also, how would anybody know?

[Update 8/11/03 at 4am] Donald Sensing presents a masterful analysis of the subject at One Hand Clapping. It should be read.