Limbaugh personal attack unearths societal issue

October 30, 2006 —

Conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh is in the news again after publicly blasting former actor Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease.

The controversy began when Limbaugh made comments on his radio show in response to a television ad in which Fox appeared. During the spot, Fox is noticeably shaking as he backs Democrat Claire McCaskill - and her support of stem cell research - in the upcoming Missouri senate race. After the ad ran, Limbaugh said he had never seen Fox display such symptoms, mentioning that the actor was faking it and calling the act "shameless." Limbaugh even physically mocked Fox as he shook and flailed his arms during the television broadcast of his program.

Limbaugh would later say that by getting involved in a political campaign, Fox was a fair target for criticism. Few can deny this, but "fair" is the key term. By personally attacking Fox, his integrity, and his credibility, Limbaugh not only managed to step over the line but perhaps erase it completely.

Limbaugh was drawn to respond based on his opposition to stem cell research. However, his poor choice of words not only managed to anger those who like and support Fox but also those who oppose stem cell research as well: making fun of a well-liked and respected public figure with a terrible disease is just not good politics.

Most disturbing of all, though, is that such a personal shot is far from rare and far from just a media phenomenon. In today's society, it is not just high-profile individuals throwing personal jabs at one another. Rather, a disturbing number of individuals seem to think making personal attacks is not only a right but perhaps the best way to make an argument. As any communication professor can attest to, that is simply not the case.

Part of the inherent beauty of our democratic system is that people can disagree with each other in a civil manner. This very publication has published many letters in which the authors make well-articulated points directly opposing the views of the paper. Not only is this positive from a journalistic standpoint but from a societal standpoint as well.

Unfortunately, the paper also receives a fair share of letters that take personal shots at those their authors disagree with. Often times, these letters not only manage to discredit the individual or individuals writing them but discredit the entire opposing side.

Perhaps it is our nameless, faceless technological society that helps invoke such practice. It is far easier to send a hurtful e-mail or blast someone on a radio program than to engage in intelligent debate. Regardless of the reasons, the entire practice of attaching personal shots to a rebuttal is shameful and cowardly. The next time one of us responds to something we disagree with by personally attacking the messenger, we must ask ourselves if we really want to stoop to Rush Limbaugh's level.