Has there ever been a time in America when certain political views and opinions expressed by public figures were simply ignored by the press, the MSM, the people they were aimed at and therefore the public because they were so inane and nonsensical that highlighting such views and opinions would give them a legitimacy and status they didn't deserve?
More to the point; does everything emanating out of the mouths of political candidates or some blowhard radio commentator "news" and worthy of media attention?
I cite two examples (certainly not limited to these two) lately in the "news" that are this type of inanity, yet grabbed headlines.
First there was Rush Limbaugh accusing one Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student of being a "slut", a "prostitute" and "round heeled" (whatever that means) because she testified before a House committee wanting health insurance companies to amend their coverage to cover contraception. Limbaugh intimated that insuring contraception would be a "welfare entitlement" and women getting paid "to have sex" to "avoid unwanted pregnancies and abortions" and as "feminazis" should "post videos on line so we can all watch".
Georgetown's President John DeGioia, was forced to comment defending his student stating, "She provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as people. One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression", (Georgetown after all is a Catholic Jesuit university and as we all know, the Church opposes contraception).
Even President Obama felt compelled to call Fluke and defend her saying he has two daughters and that her parents would be proud.
Yet the question begs; why is Limbaugh's inanity "news"? Certainly what he said is slanderous and worthy of being sued as such. And that's a personal decision Fluke has a right to consider. But giving the blowhard Limbaugh and his nonsensical views and opinions front page attention is itself asinine. The man's obviously a sad excuse of a human being who apparently thrives on the attention his crazy comments receive in the media and one guesses the more outrageous they are, the more his listeners get excited as mad dogs drooling.
But there it was, Limbaugh and his comments splashed all over the T.V. screens with the talking heads and various politicos palavering over what he said.
Then there's Rick Santorum, Republican presidential contender (pretender) calling President Obama a "snob" for supporting higher education for all Americans. Santorum called colleges and universities "indoctrination mills for godless liberalism". Really; one wonders how it's possible the "Young Republicans" on campuses nationwide still seem to thrive.
Also, there's Santorum's view on the "dangers of contraception", as well as his rejecting John F. Kennedys view on the strict separation of church and state.
From here, is the use of contraception really something most Americans are still talking about in 2012? Or that strict separation of church and state is an issue? Didn't ALL the states ratify the Constitution by the late 1790's? Hasn't Santorum gotten that message yet?
Yet the aforementioned and similar mindless vituperations spouted by public figures makes' the "news" and gets widespread attention in the MSM.
It must "sell" to the general American public or why would the MSM give this foolishness, (more suited for the likes of the "National Inquirer" and their ilk) the attention it does?
They say it and we print it, or expound on it endlessly on the tube; simply galling.