BACKSTAGE CONTROVERSY AFTER NBC DEPICTION OF LIMBAUGH
I didn’t see this sketch, so I couldn’t begin to tell you what all the fuss is about. Given that Limbaugh seems to have no boundaries when it comes to ridiculing those he doesn’t agree with, why would he not be fair game?
It’s interesting that Conservatives feel free to poke fun at those they do not agree with- sometimes in horribly personal and mean-spirited ways- and yet they profess to be legitimately offended when the blinding white light of satire is focused on them.
NBC’s comedy depiction of talkradio king Rush Limbaugh passed-out in vomit from drug abuse ignited backstage outrage at SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE.
The animated sketch left one senior production source stunned and outraged, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
“Would we have done this to [John] Belushi? [Chris] Farley?” the source said on Sunday from New York.
The source asked not to be identified fearing retribution from SNL’s executive producer Lorne Michaels.
“We’ve had more fu**ing drug addicts on this show through the years… more tragedy. I have lost count. Did we ever have some laughs about Robert Downey Jr.’s serious drug addiction?”
The crass montage which aired on NBC featured Limbaugh vomiting from drugs on a bathroom floor, in an apparent overdose.
Last year, Limbaugh announced to his radio audience that he was seeking treatment for an addiction to pain medication.
Certainly, on a very basic and very humane level, making fun of someone for an addiction issue is tasteless. Nonetheless, Limbaugh himself observes no boundaries when it comes to ridiculing those whom he finds in his crosshairs. Should we really feel sorry for someone mean-spirited enough to refer to Chelsea Clinton as the “White House dog”? Should Limbaugh not be fair game in the same way that he has ridiculed others?
Limbaugh views the ridiculing of those on the Left as a legitimate political activity…and yet he demands that his private life and personal struggles be off-limits. He holds others to a standard that he would never dream of holding himself to. IF he displayed a modicum of respect for others, I would agree that perhaps this skit was over the top and far enough beyond the bounds of good taste that it should not have been aired. Limbaugh has brought this sort of ridicule upon himself, however. Because of his basic lack of respect for those who may think differently, he sees no conflict in holding these targets up to public ridicule. Well, guess what? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Like I said, I didn’t see the skit, nor do I have any particular desire to. I prefer to waste as few brain cells as possible on a troll of Limbaugh’s ilk. Spare us the faux outrage, though, OK? No one should be surprised or upset that Limbaugh is getting some of what he dishes out. If he or his supporters do not like it, perhaps it’s time to look in the mirror. Eventually, you get what you deserve.
Of course, reflection and self-examination are not traits that Limbaugh and his Dittoheads are renowned for. It’s so much easier and less taxing to react and foam at the mouth against Evil Liberal Scum and their America-hating agenda than actually engaging in a bare minimum of critical thinking.
I've not watched SNL in a couple of decades -- you know, since the days when it was funny.
Still, there is something disconcerting about what i have read, when a show known more for the quantity of drugs that its performers consume than their talent decides to go after someone who has actually gotten a handle on his addiction, unlike the long list of casualties from that show.
And by the way -- Chelsea Hubble (whose drinking exploits were covered up by the Secret Service) wasn't terribly attractive until she go the plastic surgery and the high paying entry level job for which she was minimally qualified -- unlike a certain presidential daughter who is actually going into the trenches and working for a living.
In its early days SNL was innovative as well as hilarious. Belushi, Ackroyd, Chase, Newman, Radner and the rest of the "not ready for prime time players" were entertaining, and really seemed to be enjoying themselves as they delivered the product of comic geniuses like Franken and Davis. At the time SNL first hit the air, live TV was virtually unheard of apart from news shows, and I think this was a large part of the show's success.
Of course that was decades ago, as Greg points out. For many, the show simply isn't funny anymore.
But more on topic, I tuned in to SNL briefly about a year ago and watched an animated piece in which all of the former US presidents were depicted as superheros. Throughout the skit, Bill Clinton was shown with ankle level trousers, humping anything with an orifice of any kind. On a whole (so to speak) it really wasn't very funny, and I've not watched the show since.
One could say that making fun of Limbaugh's or Clinton's personal short comings is mean-spirited, but in the spirit of humor and free speech I would not critisize the effort. (Did I miss a pun opportunity in the previous sentence?)
I think that Northstar is correct and agree with his criticism of any backlash resulting from the show poking fun at a conservative. Limbaugh's a big boy and should be used to such pokes.
Chelsea drinking exploits? Plastic surgery?
Greg, you gotta stop reading the grocery store tabloids when you're standing in line ....
BTW, SNL is still funny or it wouldn't still be on the air. Perhaps your sense of humor has changed ....
Is it my imagination, or does the picture here of (I'm guessing) Rush Limbaugh in the toilet echo the statement made by James Lileks years ago about wanting Michael Moore to die in squalor on his bathroom floor?
Eerie.
On the issue of tasteless humour: no, that knows no political boundaries.
Or is it meant to echo Lenny Bruce?