There’s commentary and then there’s hateful insanity, and nobody is blurring the line between the two better than Rush Limbaugh. On his Tuesday radio program, the shock jock compared environmentalists to jihadists willing to dispatch child suicide bombers in support of their cause. Limbaugh then accused New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin of being an “environmentalist wacko” who believes that “humanity is destroying the climate [and will] cause the extinction of life on Earth.”
“Mr. Revkin,” Limbaugh asked, “why don’t you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?” Media Matters broke the story and produced the following video:
Here is the complete transcript of Limbaugh’s drivel:
I think these militant environmentalists, these wackos, have so much in common with the jihad guys. Let me explain this. What do the jihad guys do? The jihad guys go to families under their control and they convince these families to strap explosives on who? Not them. On their kids. Grab your 3-year-old, grab your 4-year-old, grab your 6-year-old, and we’re gonna strap explosives on there, and then we’re going to send you on a bus, or we’re going to send you to a shopping center, and we’re gonna tell you when to pull the trigger, and you’re gonna blow up, and you’re gonna blow up everybody around you, and you’re gonna head up to wherever you’re going, 73 virgins are gonna be there. The little 3- or 4-year-old doesn’t have the presence of mind, so what about you? If it’s so great up there, why don’t you go? Why don’t you strap explosives on you — and their parents don’t have the guts to tell the jihad guys, “You do it! Why do you want my kid to go blow himself up?” The jihad guys will just shoot ‘em, ‘cause the jihad guys have to maintain control.
The environmentalist wackos are the same way. This guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?
[Update 9:00 p.m.: In a post on his Dot Earth blog reacting to Limbaugh’s remarks, Revkin wrote, “This might be funny, in a sad way, if it weren’t for the fact that my mailbox is already heaped with hate mail.”]
Apparently, what irked Limbaugh was a mid-September post on Revkin’s Dot Earth blog about the theory that one of the most effective ways to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions is to “provide access to birth control for tens of millions of women around the world who say they desire it.” The post followed from a study that was conducted by the London School of Economics and commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust, which found that “contraception is the ‘greenest’ technology.”
Understandably, the theory sounds nefarious to some, but it in no way represents an autocratic push for population control. Nor is this a new theory. Revkin “raised the question of whether this means we’ll soon see a market in baby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation,” clearly noting that it was “purely a thought experiment, not a proposal.”
The post did, in fact, get a lot of people thinking, not all of who agreed with Revkin. The National Catholic Register argued that some thoughts are “better left unexpressed … The idea of a master race, for example.” Now that’s valid criticism, whether or not you agree with it. Limbaugh was not so high-minded.
“This is what I get for exploring the dubious nature of carbon credits by floating the thought experiment that, if you took such markets seriously, families in the U.S. committing to having no more than one child would get many tons worth,” Revkin wrote in an e-mail responding to Limbaugh’s suggestion that he commit suicide. “One can only hope that he’s just floating a ‘thought experiment’ too…”

I think everybody should, at birth, be awarded a certain number of "breeding credits," possibly a maximum of two, which would be cashed in on every live birth up to the limit. Those who chose NOT to reproduce could sell or trade their credits to others who craved "large" families.
The nominal price for a 'breeding credit' would equal the cost of raising a child to breeding age: say a million bucks...
#1 Posted by woody, CJR on Tue 20 Oct 2009 at 06:22 PM
Mr Limbaugh gets it right, people like Revkin should teach by example and either kill himself or sacrify his own children for the planet's sake.
All this global warming thing is nothing but a hoax created by governments to raise our taxes and seek further control of our lives.
#2 Posted by derek, CJR on Tue 20 Oct 2009 at 07:37 PM
Oh please. Limbaugh gets slimed by the entire MSM via a made-up quote about slavery, losing him a bid for an NFL franchise, and that's no biggie. Chris Matthews just last week says "somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we'll be there to watch." And that's no big deal either.
So why does Matthews ugly, divisive, violent quote get a free pass? And why does the MSM's echo chambering a lie (the slavery quote was made up) get ignored by CJR? Because you don't like Limbaugh's politics, that's why.
Look, I don't like Limbaugh either. But if you rely only on Media Matters for your faux outrage it tells a lot about you.
Here's what it tells me; Curtis Brainard cares more about partisan politics than he does about balanced reporting. The net effect is that anything you report is suspect.
#3 Posted by JLD, CJR on Tue 20 Oct 2009 at 09:08 PM
JLD:
"Limbaugh gets slimed by the ENTIRE MSM?" That sounds like a nutcase exaggeration.
So, because the clip came from Media Matters, you are denying he said this? Or are you rather trying to distract us from what L said by bringing up the source of the recording?
#4 Posted by Oran Kelley, CJR on Tue 20 Oct 2009 at 09:36 PM
Oran: The slavery quote was used on CNN, MSNBC, and several newspapers. Maybe not the entire MSN, but that was enough to have its intended effect, which was to trash Limbaugh's NFL bid.
You miss my point. As I said, I'm no fan of Limbaugh, and his quote was indeed offensive. But no more (or less) than Matthews,' which was ignored by CJR. The outrage at CJR is selective and goes in one direction only.
Matthews and Limbaugh are commentators who should be granted a bit of hyperbole. CNN and MSNBC have no excuse for promulgating lies which have real consequences.
Just imagine if Matthews was rejected for an NFL bid, and that the Bush Admin was attempting to delegitimize, say, MSNBC. I think you and Curtis would be a bit upset, no?
#5 Posted by JLD, CJR on Tue 20 Oct 2009 at 10:15 PM
This reminds of an old Peanuts cartoon where Lucy is raging on and on about overpopulation and how the Earth just couldn’t handle all the people on it, to which Linus says: “why don’t you leave then?”
Limbaugh, like Schultz, had a point: environmentalists should practice what they preach: get sterilized, stop the globetrotting, move to Ethiopia and live in a mud hut if you really believe all the bullshit you claim. Stop telling us to live a lifestlye you refuse to embrace yourself you lying hypocrites.
But in an interesting side note, the “environmental community” can threaten its critics with jail, strip them of credentials, defund their studies, call them Nazis and fascists, accuse them of recreating a new Holocaust, etcetera and pissants like Brainard here ignore it and instead decides to rebroadcast to the left’s go to slime machine, David “a little bit nutty, a little bit slutty” Brock MediaMatters.
And just where was the CJR, watchdog of journalism, when the press was cribbing planted and manufactured Limbaugh quotes from Wikipedia
#6 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 20 Oct 2009 at 11:03 PM
Please don't feed the trolls, Mr. Brainard.
#7 Posted by D. B., CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 08:51 AM
"Derek" writes: 'All this global warming thing is nothing but a hoax created by governments to raise our taxes and seek further control of our lives.'
What a brilliant way to raise taxes and control our lives! Here I thought the Cheney administration had it all figured out by manufacturing evidence of non-existent WMDs in Iraq so it could funnel billions to Halliburton and other Republican cronies and gut our civil liberties. How much easier it would have been to bribe thousands of the best scientists around the globe to say the earth is warming and the polar ice-caps are melting!
#8 Posted by Steve Din, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 11:10 AM
what melting ice-caps? evidence doesn't support that allegation:
"Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html
#9 Posted by Derek, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 11:26 AM
The Limbaugh comment qualifies as acceptable satire because of Revkin's own ideology. I've seen edgier stuff from the Left side of the political divide, but then 'edginess' is supposed to be something only excusable on the Left. (To be a leftist is to be 'iconoclastic', you see, lol.) When right-wingers start adopting the tactics and rhetoric traditionally associated with the Left (rock-throwing demonstrations, up-against-the-wall rhetoric, shouting down opponents in public forums, etc.) there is much hyperbole about the fascists in our midst. The MSM doesn't know how to handle right-wingers who behave like left-wingers in tactics and vocabulary. And when some predictable media/political/entertainment figure calls for Limbaugh's death or runs with nasty, made-up quotes attributed to him, simply because they don't like him politically- Chris Matthews is a recent example - panties don't start bunching up at CJR. I believe a novelist fantasized on NPR about killing Karl Rove, about which she and Scott Simon of NPR had a good laugh. (To be fair, Simon realized his empathy as an interviewer had gone too far, and apologized.) I missed CJR's piece noting the incident.
It's with no affection for Limbaugh's style that I believe he is held to a higher standard of behavior strictly - strictly - for political reasons, not because he is any more or less bombastic or offensive than a whole host of his ideological opponents. The lack of interest in the Left's bigoties, hidden greed, etc., weakens the MSM case against Limbaugh. Apolitical consumers who have heard much offensive talk from the Left, too, aren't exactly going to turn a hair when they hear it from the Right.
#10 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 12:57 PM
I think several people who comment here have it right. It seems like CJR and other press "critics" sees their primary role as attacking the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Fox, et al. Meanwhile, there's no one to watchdog the "watchdogs." The Obama administration can launch a full court attack on Fox, and the MSM quietly looks on (basically quietly roots them on)
As a former reporter and editor who sees plenty to criticize about Fox, I'm still astounded that the press is so complacent in the face of these administration attacks on a news network. If this were the Bush administration going after MSNBC, the press would be going nuts.
The credibility of the MSM is sinking to all-time lows. And instead of trying to restore that credibility with American readers by looking at the actions of journalists like Olbermann, Mathews, and others, CJR keeps returning its tried and true formula of whacking away at Limbaugh, Fox, etc.
I would suggest that CJR try to figure out a way to try to help journalism restore credibility with readers, instead of continually trying to score points that will help its writers win points with friends at Manhattan cocktail parties.
#11 Posted by Frank, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 12:57 PM
The right are both hypocrites and whiners. Nobody is watching the MSM boo-hoo. Somebody is picking on our Rush boo-hoo. Somebody is countering our nutcase rantings with facts boo-hoo. Beck isn't loved by all boo-hoo. Rush crawls out from his slimy rock and tries to join polite society by buying and NFL team and polite society - in this case Republican (!) NFL owners - send him back under his rock boo-hoo boo-hoo boo-hoo...
#12 Posted by Sam B, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 01:13 PM
Frank, it's hardly a "full court attack" (did you mean full court press?). The Obama administration correctly pointed out what has been obvious for years to everybody but right-bent idiots: FNC is not a news operation and never has been. Rush Limbaugh is a proudly ignorant, morbidly obese, deaf drug addict who can be counted on to say idiotic things because that's his job.
#13 Posted by J.J. Hunsecker, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 01:14 PM
So why do we give any shrift to a man who is a junkie? He is not a journalist...just an entertainer...and a rotten entertainer at that.
#14 Posted by Chris Harris, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 02:58 PM
Mr. Revkin, Why don't you contribute your body to bio fuel? Your obvious bias for all Big Brother progressive programs and taxes is now common knowledge of even lowly Walmart shoppers. Climate Change, Tax and Cap is a Soviet-style hoax to tax the middleclass into submission.
#15 Posted by mick gregory, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 03:12 PM
Mr. Revkin, Why don't you contribute your body to bio fuel? Your obvious bias for all Big Brother progressive programs and taxes is now common knowledge of even lowly Walmart shoppers. Climate Change, Tax and Cap is a Soviet-style hoax to tax the middleclass into submission.
#16 Posted by mick gregory, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 03:13 PM
I think most of the commentators here have missed the point of precisely why Mr. Limbaugh's comments are so offensive. At issue is not whether Mr. Limbaugh attacked an environmentalist and CJR is defending them. Mr. Limbaugh said he wanted someone to kill themselves, which is a comment so appalling it has NO PLACE in serious debate. Whether Mr. Limbaugh was addressing an environmentalist, a conservative, a liberal or anyone else, the fact remains that telling someone to commit suicide is not funny, nor should it be thrown around lightly like that.
Telling anyone to end their life is extremely offensive, because it's not some abstract concept, but a real and serious issue. Coming from a family deeply affected by suicide I was appalled that someone who claims to be a serious and legitimate commentator (which Limbaugh does claim to be) would name someone on air and say wanted them to end their life. That's not political commentary, that's just hate, especially coming from someone who claims to be "pro-life."
If Mr. Limbaugh disagrees with what Mr. Revkin has to say, he should say so, but to bring in suicide like it's a joke is wildly inappropriate for any serious political discourse.
#17 Posted by quantos, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 03:54 PM
Quantos' tone is attractively reasonable, but in a journalism review it is not 'missing the point' to ask why Rush Limbaugh is held to so much higher standards of expression - by CJR, in this case - that Matthews and others. We'll try one more time - why are death wishes for poltical opponents not news when Chris Matthews and Bill Maher and other pundit/entertainers make them out loud, but are news when 'conservative' political figures do so? So far, no one has actually answered that one, though there has been the usual energetic, if not very skilled abuse of Limbaugh. Boring.
As for Sam B., and J.J. (whose monicker suggests a sophistication not found in his messages), stay classy, guys.
#18 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 04:46 PM
Satire, even RL's juvenile satire, might best be met with satire: I would, but I'm worried about the carbon footprint.. And so on.
Dan
#19 Posted by Dan Buck, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 05:25 PM
I almost feel like I owe Sam and JJ a beer for posting comments that make me look like the voice of sweet reason. I would also like to point readers here to an article at Politico today that notes how the press strategy of the Obama White House is to marginalize its enemies, particularly people like Limbaugh.
It is my own personal belief that CJR ought to be analyzing whether the press is doing its job as a watchdog of government, rather than helping any administration -- whether intentionally or not -- marginalize its enemies.
But maybe that's just me.
#20 Posted by Frank, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 06:04 PM
Much of the time, I wonder why people pay attention to a buffoon like Limbaugh. It just encourages him and he generates more heat than light.
#21 Posted by David, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 07:02 PM
Let's not forget Wanda Sykes' hoping that Limbaugh's kidneys would fail at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. That comment DID have the entire MSM chortling, as well as our dear "post partisan" President.
Where was the outrage then?
#22 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 07:35 PM
Derek,
Sorry, citing data about thickening ice in one place in Antarctica is classic cherrypicking. The Greenland ice sheet is melting at a rate unprecedented in recent times. If the rate continues, in the next century oceans will have risen ten feet by the time all of Greeland is exposed rock. The Arctic Ocean itself is making less ice every year by a fantastic margin.
How much are we contributing to the process and how much is a long-term natural cycle? Six billion people on the planet is a new phenomenon -- and an instant one in geologic time. The planet is a closed system, I hope you can agree. All actions have reactions. What we do has consequences. May I refer you to Isaac Newton for starters.
#23 Posted by Tom, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 08:13 PM
Dear Curtis,
As you probably know by now, eighteen (18) leading scientific organizations issued a joint letter yesterday, to the U.S. Senate, regarding climate change.
In my view, this presents a great and unique opportunity to see whether, how, and how well the media cover that story.
Will The New York Times cover the letter as a prominent front-page story? Will USA Today cover it as a prominent story? What about The WSJ? And the cable networks? And so forth.
May we do a real "examination" and test here to see whether, how, and how well the media cover this immensely important, crystal clear, singular, and easy-to-cover development? How SERIOUS, really, are the media in covering science when it comes to the most important issue of our time?
Thanks,
Jeff
#24 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Thu 22 Oct 2009 at 10:19 AM
You guys at CJR need to take a vacation. A lot of what Limbaugh says is satire. Yes, some of it is biting and sharp-edged but gimme a break! The guy at the NYT presented a fairly absurb idea (that too many humans contributes to global-warming) and Limbaugh makes the point that if he is so worried about then why not help the cause and die. The so-called "science" of global warming is continuing to lose credibilty among the American people, but many journalists continue to present it as a settled argument. It is this "we know better than you" attitude of many journalists, media people that gets under the skin of the American people. We are smart enough to decide these things for ourselves.
#25 Posted by Dennis, CJR on Thu 22 Oct 2009 at 08:33 PM
Curtis,
Witness the comment made above by "Dennis" today at 8:33 PM.
Dennis might not realize that eighteen (18) major science organizations sent a letter (as you know) yesterday to members of the Senate, signed, about the reality, importance, and urgency of global warming.
Perhaps Rush won't mention that, and perhaps Fox News won't cover that well and honestly.
So, for all sorts of reasons, it is obviously critically important for key members of the responsible media TO cover that, prominently and well.
Who is doing it? Will The Times cover it? On the front page? And so forth.
Please let me know if I can help on that. I'd be happy to analyze The Times carefully over the next few days, if you like, to see whether and how well they cover it.
I hope that Dennis will have a chance to read that letter. Scientists in the organizations it represents are probably responsible for about 90% of the materials he uses on a daily basis.
Be Well,
Jeff
#26 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Thu 22 Oct 2009 at 09:41 PM