Air America needs to dump Randi Rhodes

I've already argued persuasively that Randi Rhodes is an embarrassment to progressives. Now I'm running out of adjectives. What's worse than "embarrassment"? Words fail me.

Yesterday I opted to test my teeth-gritting ability and tuned to Portland's Air America station, KPOJ, while she was on. I heard some amazing news: Dick Cheney said they have lawyers looking into whether the 22^nd Amendment is inoperative, and George Bush could run for a third term.

Wow! What a scoop. That was the first I'd heard about this astounding revelation. Rhodes went on to express her outrage about how the administration was set on making the country into a never-ending Bush monarchy.

I took her seriously, because she was talking that way. So did other listeners, naturally, some of whom posted excited comments on the Randi Rhodes message board.

The top of the hour came. Time for Air America news. "Wonder what they'll say about the Cheney story?" I thought.

Answer: nothing. Because this was an April Fool's Day joke, a hoax that the perpetrator observed keeps on hoaxing. A fact that Randi Rhodes belatedly recognized on her show.

How did she deal with the ridiculous misinformation she spouted over the public airwaves? Not by apologizing, but by saying, "The fact that this is something we could have believed about Cheney shows how little credibility he has." (words to that effect, at least; I'm going by memory here).

Randi, as difficult as it is to surpass Dick Cheney in the lack of credibility department, you did that yesterday. Like you do most days I listen to you. You shoot from the lip in a seriously misinformed fashion just as badly as Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and other right-wing wacko talk show hosts do.

Get off Air America, please.

All you're doing is preaching to the faithful who excuse your misstatements because they like your passionate style. I respect your passion also, but not your propensity to say whatever pops into your head, regardless of its truth content.

That's just what George Bush and Dick Cheney do. You're not helping the progressive cause by acting just like them.

Comments

[Terry]

I think Sam Seder should be sacked first. The guy irritates me to death --his whining, his unoriginality, his inability to handle
callers, his lousy delivery.

Randi Rhodes is at least occasionally entertaining.

[ann Brodersen]

I think Randi Rhodes is really rude both to her special guests and to most of the people who call her. As tho she thinks what she has to say is more important. Also when she comes back from vacation, all she talks about is herself. Its me,me,me,me. She continually interrupts even her special guests.

[randy davis]

I disagree, she may not be your cup of tea, but she consistently gets good ratings, has a huge and devoted following. Thats the nice thing about commercial radio. She may not be Amy Goodman or KBOO, but she appeals to people that Amy Goodman and KBOO will never reach.

[William Ware]

Randi Rhodes is a good soul. But I do not like her shallow analysis. I would prefer a Amy Goodman style talk with people who are knowlegeable.

Al Franken, who was good as a NY comedian, occasionally had profound thinkers guest on his show.

I vastly prefer Tom Harmann's approach. More depth. Less talk like a Rush Limbaugh of the Left.

[Rain]

I can't stand her ranting either. she loves to hear her own voice and it grates on me. Being on a recent road trip, I listened to a lot of talk radio-- most of it right wing as it's what is most popular on radio. Some I could stand awhile and some would drive me nuts within 5 minutes and even silence was better. I like Ed Shultz and right now he's about the only one that consistently seems to think.

[Bruce Fealk]

I like Randi, especially when some right wing whack job calls in and spouts the right wing talking points. She lets them talk till they start to only use the right wing talking points, then she lowers the boom on them.

[Dick McMahon]

What happened to RESPONSIBILITY in broadcasting? Randi Rhodes' report saying that V.P. Cheney was looking for ways to circumvent the 22nd amendment was far worse than anything Don Imus did this week.

Doesn't she check her sources before going on the air? A first-year journalism student would know an accusation as important as that needs confirmation.

If Air America is to have any credibility, Randi needs to be admonished and taken off the air for a while like Don Imus. It's going to take some time for listeners to trust her reports in the future.
Dick McMahon

[Craig Houghton]

Hey, Randi does great work. She figured out the fake within minutes. The hoax article was built to decieve. There's a _huge_ difference between an honest mistake and an intentional deception. I'd rather spend my time ranting about the latter, of which Randi is innocent.

[Steve McGinnis]

Her fits of irrationality and temper,seemingly endless single-subject rants, her talent for twisting up a caller's words and ignoring salient points of a debate....no mystery here as to why she's a single mom. Why the popularity?

[Lee Walton]

Randi is great! Why are people so up tight? She is funny and kids a lot, which makes her fascinating. She is extremely smart and up to date on what's going on. Listen to the content. It's funny, but right on. Loosen up!

[Kevin Convery]

The people criticizing Randi are obviously, from their words, just miffed that Randi busted them on their canned Republican't nonsense. The comment about single motherhood was OBVIOUSLY from some neocon pig. (She's a single mother because her sister died of cancer and she's raising her niece.) Only a right-wing thug would try something so cheap.

What she says IS more important. That's why SHE has a show and you don't. She does the research. Facts matter much, much more than politeness to callers who have no clue as to how to make a point and shut up. Many people call with the clear intention of doing a pre-conceived "bit," and Randi won't have it. That may come off as "rude" sometimes.

[Steve McGinnis]

Well then, I retract the single-mom comment. I was ignorant of the facts. If I had made the comment with foreknowledge of this NEW (to me) information, then YES, indeed it would be thuggish, no doubt.
By the way, I am not right-wing as you have probably been indoctrinated to understand what 'right-wing' is. To make it brief, I am a Ron Paul conservative. THAT is right wing, everything to the left of this is fascism.

[Vicki Barnett]

I was relieved to read that I am not the only one who thinks Randi Roadkill is a waste. Well, OK, not a total waste. If she continues on the air then we can just leave all talk radio alone. I like to listen to all talk radio (well I can only take RR for about 3 minutes). Free speech is what it is all about whether left, right, right, wrong whatever. This allows intelligent people to listen to a variety of information decide for themselves right and wrong. Gee, including Ann Coulter. Two provacateurs.

[Deborah]

Rhodes is losing credibility, but apparently not with her dedicated followers. Some people just like the Limbaugh style that Rhodes uses, others prefer a more intellectual approach, such as what Thom Hartmann uses.

While Rhodes claims she does more research for her show "than any other talk show host," it has become all to obvious that she does hardly any research. Instead, her show is a more reactionary type "shoot from the lip" sort of show, with little if anything to do with actual facts. The Cheney-22nd Amendment story is just one classic example of this.

The latest example of Rhodes' lack of research before shooting off at the mouth was an obvious attack on all transgendered persons on her June 28, 2007 show. Now, it had become clear to at least me by this point that Rhodes has serious issues with transgendered people, after her repeated attacks on Ann Coulter during the previous several weeks. Coulter, who is not transgendered by the way, is repeatedly attacked on this issue alone by Rhodes, who sees this mythical gender issue as a way to attack Coulter. In the above cited episode, Rhodes claimed to have received information from a third party that all transgendered persons are mentally unstable as a result of hormone replacement therapy (in fact, the opposite is true), and that HRT explains Coulter's behaviors (not the fact that Coulter is a particularly opportunistic, mean spirited, and hateful person who would do anything for a buck and a bump in the ratings). In making the comment, Rhodes put all transgendered persons at risk for additional discrimination and violence directed at them, a community that has more than their share of violent deaths, unemployment, and homelessness than all other minorities combined.

The third party Rhodes supposedly got her information from was not a medical professional, a trained counselor, or even a transgendered person. It was a friend of hers that supposedly once met a transsexual, who had no direct knowledge of that person's medical treatment, stage of transition, etc. This uninformed third party opinion was used not just to attack Coulter, but transgendered persons as well, in a way intended to cause harm, at least as far as I'm concerned.

I have no love loss for Coulter, to say the least. I disagree with her style, hate her distortions and lies, and think her political and social views are particularly hateful, bigoted, and facist. Rhodes, however, chooses to attack Coulter on a personal level, in a way that demeans and disrespects tens of thousands of Americans who have enough to deal with without personal attacks from someone who knows nothing about the subject of gender dysphoria.

Rhodes has a lengthy history of sporadic attacks on transgendered persons, going back to 1987 when she used the particularly offensive term "tranny whore." While she has steered away from name calling towards the transgendered population, she has frequently made medical and social opinions towards them that are equally offensive and blatantly false. Now, she is using the issue of gender to attack someone who isn't transgendered.

The sooner the style of personal attacks is eliminated from progressive media programming, the better, and that means Rhodes needs to seek life elsewhere. If I wanted to listen to personal attacks on talk radio, I'd listen to Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. If we are to fight back successfully against the hyperconservative movement, we need to do so based upon facts, not by using the tactics of the opposition of creating hatred and dividing the nation.

tranny whore... hehe...

[ajhil]

Last week a caller asked an obviously rhetorical question. Randi took it literally and then proceeded to upbraid the caller mercilessly. The poor guy kept trying to explain that he was making the same point she was, but she continued to insult him. It was embarrassing. Worse still, it wasn't an aberration. Randi produces some informative monologues, but her treatment of callers is deplorable. She repeatedly waits for them to begin speaking and then interrupts.
I like Randi. I think her heart's in the right place. I just wish she'd chill out a bit and let callers talk without being needlessly argumentative.
If she's going to take the gloves off, I'd rather see her make an issue of something important like the 9-11 fraud.

[Ed]

Randi Rhodes has done more than anyone to properly inform people of the dangers and hyprocrises of this administration and the minions that mindlessly follow them. She is tough, and makes no bones about it. She is tremendously bright and can frame arguments so that you can understand all the dynamics of a given situation. I would think that would be exactly what you need to educate people. Don't knock the very people you need to get you through this authoritarian government run by Bush/Cheney.

[vinnie]

You are 100% correct but let's not sugar coat it. Her "misstatements" are infact plain old lies intended to inflame her kook listeners who tune in for their fix of "9-11" was an inside job nonsense.