Context Is Everything

Take, for example, this op-ed from today's Tribune-Review.  Scaife's braintrust defends Rush Limbaugh by, in effect, saying "hey, the libs do it too!

But by removing the context (or imposing their own) they, in effect, invalidate their own argument.

For example:

Even with an apology, a plethora of "progressives" continue to be up in arms over Rush Limbaugh employing the absurd to expose the absurd -- in this case, advocacy for at-whim government suspension of freedom of religion.

Really? THAT'S why he called Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute and said that she should post sex tapes so the tax payers can watch her use the contraceptives "they" paid for?  It was about "at-whim government suspension of freedom of religion"?  That's simply absurd.  Even for Scaife's braintrust.
Then there's their examples:

• Ed Schultz, who fancies the term "bimbo," once called talk show host Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut"

Yes, that's exactly the same as Rush, right? Well, let's see what Ed Schultz himself had to say about it:

Schultz noted that Limbaugh had said he didn’t expect liberals to apologize for myriad offenses they had racked up against conservative women, something Schultz personally took umbrage at. “As usual, he is wrong,” he noted, and found the comparison between Limbaugh’s “tirade for nine hours” and the “12 seconds [in which] I made an inappropriate statement” ridiculous. “Drawing a moral equivalence between me and Rush… diminishes the outrageous nature of Limbaugh’s attack,” he argued, adding that Limbaugh “completely failed to offer an adequate apology.” To depict what he considered an adequate apology, and in case anyone had forgotten, he played his mea culpa to Laura Ingraham from last year, and noted that he personally called Ingraham and they made amends. “I went to management and told them I need to take myself off the air without pay,” he concluded. Noting that Ingraham had attacked the President for calling Fluke and not her after Schultz’s remarks, he appeared surprised he would bring it up since, to him, it was a closed case after his repentance– that lack of remorse being the fundamental difference between his remarks and Limbaugh’s.

Rush is still on the air, isn't he? Still getting paid, isn't he? Never apologized personally to Fluke, has he?

Yea, Ed Schultz and Rush Limbaugh are exactly the same.

Then there's Keith Olbermann calling Michelle Malkin a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick". Why would he do such a thing? Here's the transcript (thanks to our good friends at Newsbusters):

KEITH OLBRMANN: Runner up, Michelle Malkin. ... When this Obama song stupidity broke in New Jersey last month with elementary school kids there singing about the President, author Shariz Carney Nunez says she got an email from Malkin reading:

I understand that you uploaded the video of schoolchildren reciting a Barack Obama song/rap at Bernice Young Elementary School in June. I have a few quick questions. Did you help write the song/rap and teach it to the children? Are you an. educator/guest lecturer at the school? Did you teach about your book, "I Am Barack Obama," at the school? Your bio says you are a schoolmate of Obama. How well acquainted are you with the President?

That was at 6:47 in the morning. By nighttime, Malkin and the lunatic fringe had decided Carney-Nunez was responsible for the song and whichever plot their fevered little paranoid minds saw behind it. She received death threats and hate-filled voice mails all thanks to the total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic hatred, without which Michelle Malkin would just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it. Ms. Carney-Nunez had nothing to do with the song. By the way, the fringe is out protesting at the school again scaring the kids. You know, exactly the way that psychotic pastor protests at military funerals.

Context is everything, isn't it?

But they all do it, right?  Take this example, from 30 some odd years ago:

Richard Scaife rarely speaks to the press. After several unsuccessful efforts to obtain an interview, this reporter decided to make one last attempt in Boston, where Scaife was scheduled to attend the annual meeting of the First Boston Corporation.

Scaife, a company director, did not show up while the meeting was in progress. Reached eventually by telephone as he dined with the other directors at the exclusive Union Club, he hung up the moment he heard the caller's name. A few minutes later he appeared at the top of the Club steps. At the bottom of the stairs, the following exchange occurred:

"Mr. Scaife, could you explain why you give so much money to the New Right?" "You fucking Communist cunt, get out of here."

Well. The rest of the five-minute interview was conducted at a rapid trot down Park Street, during which Scaife tried to hail a taxi. Scaife volunteered two statements of opinion regarding his questioner's personal appearance—he said she was ugly and that her teeth were "terrible"—and also made the comment that she was engaged in "hatchet journalism." His questioner thanked Scaife for his time.

"Don't look behind you," Scaife offered by way of a good-bye.

Not quite sure what this remark meant, the reporter suggested that if someone were approaching it was probably her mother, whom she had arranged to meet nearby. "She's ugly, too," Scaife said, and strode off.

Ah...good times.  Did he ever apologize?