Media Matters Responds To Michael Savage Threats, Cyberstalking (VIDEO)

Yesterday, I mentioned that talk radio host Michael Savage had decided to engage in a tidy bit of web-stalking of his critics at Media Matters, threatening to put up the pictures and "pertinent information" of the organization's employees. That seemed to be an odd thing to do! Given the fact that Media Matters has been driving an argument of late, the premise of which was that right-wing media hosts had been trafficking in a sort of speech intended to incite violence and intimidation. It's sort of a bad move for Savage to step up and help prove their point. But that's what he's done, for reasons beyond understanding!

Anyway, the media watchdog has responded with one of their patented mash-up videos, intercutting an appearance Savage made on CNN with statements he's made on his own show. The juxtaposition is pretty striking! On CNN, Savage makes a labored attempt to come across as a perfectly normal guy whose church teachings forbid homosexuality and whose opinions on illegal immigration are in sync with mainstream America. But then, the next minute, on his own show, he's freaking out about "puffy-faced" men kissing. Oh, and he seems awfully threatened about multiculturalism, for some reason, shrieking about burning the Mexican flag.

Anyway, Media Matters doesn't seem too intimidated by this guy and given the fact that he doesn't seem to have any courageous convictions, it's pretty easy to see why.

[WATCH]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[easarsfield]

I guess the issue here is freedom of speech.

While I don't like what he has to say, our country does protect his right to voice whatever completely whack-job nonsense he wants to.

HOWEVER - Savage, along with the likes of Rush and all the other television/radio personalities need to understand that even if what they are saying is in jest, there are a good amount of people out there who are inspired by their hateful speech. It's sad that they can't man up and accept responsibility for inciting the actions of extremists.

[Gover]

It's not his responsibility to prevent people from being idiots.

As far as I'm concerned he can have his own radio station 24/7 and pump out this B.S. all day long.

However, I reserve the right to lose all respect for anyone that would listen to him.

[Cybesq]

The right of free speech protects our right to free expression from the government. It doesn't meant that corporations have to give a broadcasted outlet to every wack nut with a microphone. Sponsors need to be be targeted, and not just at local levels.

[ObamAtomic]

Freedom of speech is protected,until you infringe the right of others,read it.

[rattler99]

what do you call 'infringement' - anything that disagrees with you?

[ScreenName05]

Not really, the issue is has Savage exceeded the bounds of decency with his speech such that he falls into one of the exceptions to free speech that exist within the law - such as slander. If he hasn't he has come very close.

[ObamAtomic]

Decency is not an issue,but if we applied law decency to his ranting he should be
incarcerated long ago.

You have the right to your opinion but the law is the law,God Bye!

[BambooHarvester]

The savage Pee Pee !
~ Stern gave a great analysis of this Weenie . . .

[Simian]

Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

[ReedYoung]

Definitely.

[Sepulchre]

He also said on April 17, nationally syndicated radio host Michael Savage called for ki.lll[ing] 100 million" Muslims and referred to the woman who alleged she was raped by members of Duke University's lacrosse team as a "drunken sl,ut stripping wh,ore."

[Sepulchre]

Forgot to post year, i was 2006.

[pipetoe]

What was she then?

[RealityBaseCamp]

I like to point out whenever possible that Weiner sounds like "whiner," not "wiener."

Also, I hope he's not related to HuffPo's Rachel Weiner.

[dannneeboy]

I wish Michael could visit Michael Jackson soon.

[FdeBear]

A very cruel comment. Michael Jackson was not hateful. He was truely gifted and never threatened any one's life. He used his microphone to bring joy to us all. To say such a thing shows you want to sink to Savage's or shall I say, Michael Weiner's level. Don't be a slimeball.

[d00derman]

well dannnneeeboy was cruel to Savage really

[dannneeboy]

fdebear my bad did not mean to say anything bad about Michael. I shed tears when I heard of his passing.

[Incumbent]

It's obvious the guy's barely capable of rational thought so I don't know why I even bother asking this, but how can Savage equate Media Matters pointing out inconsistencies in what he and other conservatives say in public forums to him posting on his website pictures and "pertinent information" about those who work at Media Matters? If he, Rush, Hannity, et al don't want scrutiny of their words, they probably shouldn't be saying them over the airwaves for everyone to hear.

[RowJimmy]

It is pretty scary reading these tyrannical comments by the so-called liberals who are posting on this forum. You hear an obviously edited out-of-context clips by Mr. Savage and everyone here is screaming for him to be put in jail and shut him up. Savage often says mean-spirited offensive comments but he never directly called for violence. The leftist media takes small stories that happen very rarely where a right-winger goes off the deep end and it indicts all conservatives of that crime. But it helps your agenda to have a boogeyman to scare people to give up their liberties. Just like when the right was in power and Republicans were so quick to give up their liberties to the Patriot Act because they were afraid of the Muslim boogeyman. Now DHS will scare us with Right-wing boogeyman.

[MajorKong]

I suspect most of the people defending Savage here were the same ones screaming "Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!" at the Dixie Chicks a few years ago.

[helenwheels]

No doubt.

[SteadyOn]

Natalie speaks for me.

[Redfox834]

And to think he was so outraged when the UK banned him.

[Sepulchre]

In general they are better educated there than here, so i don't think he would have had that big an audience over there.

[Dunelm]

Thanks for mentioning the U.K. ban. Obviously, that country understands the power of words, and it also believes in freedom of speech. The problem with Savage is that he is abusing his freedoms and is inciting violence. Millennia ago, Homer recognized the power of words when he said, "Violent thoughts lead to violent words lead to violent deeds."

[jackostrato]

doesn't the right to free speech come with a responsibility, i.e.-you can't yell fire in a crowded theater?

[caterpol]

Moreover, some here---much like Palin---have the misguided notion that free speech means you're guaranteed zero criticism for your words.

Sorry, free speech works both ways. And if you break the law, you're going to have to answer to it.

[Prattvictory2]

They hung a guy a Nuremberg for writing inflaminatory things.

[lianmolive]

Most of us despise what he says, but doesn't he have that right to say it?

[bingvangorden]

No one is denying him the right to say anything by documenting what he says.

[lianmolive]

well people are claiming that he's inciting violence... which would change the equation. I just want to know how he's doing that. Telling people to burn the Mexican flag, IMO, doesn't qualify any more than telling someone to burn the American or Confederate flag.

[jackostrato]

sorry, i meant to put this here:

doesn't the right to free speech come with a responsibility, i.e.-you can't yell fire in a crowded theater?

[Sepulchre]

Apparently they only think it comes with responsibilities when it is someone they don't agree with saying it. No one should use the right to free speak to incite violence, I don't care who they are or what they believe.

[lianmolive]

Yes. All of us ought to have regard for another person's feelings and possible actions.

But there are so many gray areas. Some Hosts, and maybe it was Savage, will tell listeners that don't like, "Go shoot yourself."

Now if that person shot herself, who's responsible?

Free speech is tricky. If it causes a stampede of people to rush out when there's no fire, then that person screaming fire is lawfully responsible.

But stating something like Burn the Mexican flag... while deplorable... how is that any different that burning the American or Confederate flag?

[FdeBear]

He may have the right, but it doesn't make what this hideous, hateful and disturbed man right! He's possessed.

[lianmolive]

Well I would agree with that/

[fetchezlavache]

If what he says can be proven to have incited someone to violence, then he can be charged with a crime.

[CarmanK]

where are these people coming from, that they think they can or even have the right to bully so many people into some kind of subservience??? These ruthless celebrities, have no more rights than the rest of us to express our opinions and take action. Savage like Limbaugh really have a bloviated opinion of themselves. I hope their fall from grace will be smooth.

[ErnestineBass]

I don't. I hope they hit every last branch on the stupidtree on their way down.

[VeroucaSalt]

Ditto!!

[chasethis]

Ha!

[fuzzynormal]

Jason, what's with all the exclamation points?

[Caymus77]

Wow! One exclamation point and you get excited. I guess they work.

[Alvarofms]

There is ONE exclamation point in the article.....is that too much for you?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BruceHNV]

He uses them for comedic effect - to express mock surprise or outrage(!)

[helenwheels]

Yes, I found that sort of odd too, but funny.

[lianmolive]

What things have he said that incites violence?

[caterpol]

He told his listeners to burn the Mexican flag on their street corner. Can you imagine the outcome if his listeners take him up on that?

[lianmolive]

what if he said to burn the American flag... is that inciting violence?

[TheLabNinja]

Cause you know when people burn flags they totally do it in a peaceful manner. What use does a person have for "photographs" and "pertinent information"? To target specific people. If someone wants to register complaints to Media Matters, they don't need either of those things, there is a CONTACT US link on the front page of their website.

[smileatfear]

"They're raping our children's minds." "Burn a Mexican flag on the streetcorner for America." "Autism is a fraud. It's just brats who've never been disciplined. They need to be told to shut up." "I'll post their pictures and other pertinent information, where you can find them." Shall I go on?

[helenwheels]

Someone upthread said he offered to pay for the buIIets to kiII someone - that's mind-bIowing.

[lianmolive]

All those comments are deplorable... but where is inciting violence?

Again I ask, if I said burn the American or Confederate flag, is that inciting violence?

[fredisfred]

Does advocating the carpet bombing of the Sunni triangle count? Because I remember him saying that time and time again a few years ago.

[fredisfred]

He also suggested high school girls gete raped in a dumpster because they were giving food to the homeless.

[helenwheels]

WHAT! I don't remember that one! HoIy cr@p.