Skip to main content

Congrats to Rush Limbaugh for being the king of untrustworthiness!

No, he may not claim to be a "news" source, however, Rush Limbaugh does spout his views on the air throughout the course of the week and many of his listeners consider his opinions to be facts - so the man does influence a great number of people, whom treat his show like actual news. Sadly for Rush (not really), according to a new Pew Research poll, he is the least trusted name in all of "news."

According to this survey, while 12% of respondents trust Rush Limbaugh, 39% do not. Fox News came in second at 37%. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity came in 3rd and 5th at 24% and 21%, respectively. The only non-conservative leaning network or show to make the top 5 was MSNBC, which came in at 22% untrustworthiness.

Fact-checking site Politifact.com probably couldn't blame the public for not trusting Limbaugh very much. Here's the breakdown of the 28 statements of his they've researched:

True: 0 (0%)

Mostly True: 2 (7%)

Half True: 3 (11%)

Mostly False: 7 (25%)

False: 9 (32%)

Pants on Fire: 7 (25%)

So, out of his 28 statements, just 5 are at least half true (18%), while 23 are at least mostly false (82%), and 0% are completely true. Yes, that's quite the credible record right there!

Here are the 7 statements by Limbaugh which resulted in a "Pants on Fire" grade:

1) "Obama regime planned the influx of illegal alien children at the border."

2) "Says the media created the term 'polar vortex' and the cold air proves 'the ice isn't melting.'"

3) "Says it's not 'accidental' that the villain in the Batman movie is named Bane."

4) "Obamacare is ... the largest tax increase in the history of the world."

5) "People 'can't go fishing anymore because of Obama.'"

6) "There are 'high administrative costs' when you donate to Haiti relief through the White House Web site."

7) "President Obama ... wants to mandate circumcision."

Ah, yes, it's still a wonder how 12% of the respondents trust him...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/21/rush-limbaugh-is-americas-least-trusted-news-source/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"