advertisement
RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

The Rush Limbaugh April Fools’ Response

by Ryan Rodrick Beiler 04-03-2009

April 1 was quite the roller coaster for me. First of all, I’m already in a good mood because it’s my sister’s birthday (no kidding). Second of all, I’m giddy from splicing together Rush Limbaugh’s CPAC speech into an April Fools’ version of something that he might say to the Mobilization to End Poverty if he had a political Damascus road conversion. In trepidation, we run it by Jim Wallis for final approval–he loves it.

So far so good. Then we launch the first wave of SojoMail–I’ve broken it into segments so all the traffic of people clicking to watch the video post doesn’t hit our blog server all at once. No dice. The initial wave of traffic crashes the server. Everyone’s going crazy because we’re getting all this traffic (good thing), but it’s crashing the server (very bad thing).

Meanwhile, Facebook and Twitter are abuzz with comments about the video–almost universally positive or just sharing the link. Some examples of our Twitter comments:

just read an email update from sojourners announcing rush limbaugh had joined the cause…then I remembered what day it is

Great AF joke from Sojourners and Jim Wallis: video of Rush Limbaugh joining Sojo’s campaign to end poverty

I love the part about him grabbing his “trusty KJV” and opening it at random. Love Sojourners!

you guys (and gals) are having way too much fun today… back to work! LOL…hysterically!

BEST APRIL FOOLS EVER

But then, replies to SojoMail start arriving by e-mail. The breakdown: 50 percent negative, 20 percent positive, 30 percent don’t realize or aren’t sure that it’s a joke. The negative e-mails fell into several general threads, with some overlap. First were people who like Sojourners, but think we should stay out of the humor business:

If and when I want to read cynical comments and sarcastic humour, I’d go to the Onion. I do not choose to read Sojourners for that. I choose Sojourners to get a message of hope, sometimes, tough love and to read usually uplifting and always important articles which balance my daily NYT et al  diet. … It’s not that the issue of poverty can’t be funny. Even Jesus got off a zinger about rich men, camels and the eye of a needle. Limbaugh’s brand of hatred and bigotry needs to be confornted more directly.

…bipartisanship, especially on how to end poverty, is not a joking matter and should never take a break, not even a 24 hour break on April 1.

I don’t read you for humor. I read you for positive, balanced, hopeful, important, value-infused news, damn it

Fair enough. We’ll just have to agree to disagree about that. God forbid that Sojourners should be required to be as deadly serious as the majority of the issues we cover most of the time. Also, we’d have to fire Ed Spivey Jr. Besides, if NPR can do it, why can’t we?

The other thread of response revealed that our prank manipulated the emotions of folks wanting it to be true. For example:

I suppose that I could be called naive for believing the email you sent out, but I believe I must not have been alone in my naivety. … I was so happy at what I read (of course, at first), that I was nearly moved to worship. Then I realized that the update was an April Fools’ joke. While I believe that a person should take all things with a grain of salt, so to speak, I feel that the update you sent out was cruel (at least for the potentially few of us who believed it).

I read this article about Rush Limbaugh with tears in my eyes and resurgent hope that “God is still speaking,” … I was about to forward this to our church email list, thinking what Good News we had been given on the verge of Holy Week and Easter. And then I got to the “April Fools” punch line.  I think this was a horrible, ugly joke that demeaned all of us who have true hope for a better day in America, who have supported the hopeful leadership of our new president, and who even hope that the Rush Limbaughs of this world may be transformed by the Spirit among us. Shame on you, Sojourners.  I expect much better.

Wow. The last thing we wanted to do was cruelly manipulate readers’ emotions. But I agree with the earlier comment that even Jesus joked about the eternal status of rich folks, their camels, and the eyes of needles. But I’ll admit that at least one mistake was assuming that the joke would be obvious from the start. And then there were those who felt we were being unfair to Rush:

The e-mail blast today, though, with its searing criticism of Rush Limbaugh, Kenneth Copeland, and Vice President Joe Biden, really crossed the line for me, though.  I appreciate irony, yet I found the humor a bit biting against certain personalities. If you are going to have such a bias against certain people, I don’t know if I can continue to read Sojourners’ e-mails.  I thought you were going to try to be bipartisan, in spite of the fact that your e-mails often seem to favor Democrats.  We don’t need more division in these days.

To which I humbly respond that our April Fools’ humor poked fun at all sides of the political and theological spectrum. As this note even mentions, in addition to Limbaugh, we spoofed Vice President Biden, and I would also add, we did a satire of President Obama’s arts of persuasion, and even posted a photo of our own Jim Wallis in handcuffs for alleged steroid use.

And then, finally, there were the folks that just never noticed that it was a joke:

… why, why, why would you cheapen your good name and give individuals such as myself good reason to leave the fold? This was not an inadvertent mistake. You cannot accidentally invite the most controversial far right commentator in the country to keynote an issue that he has so often demeaned.

I CAN’T BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE INVITED LIMBAUGH TO SPEAK! HE IS AN ARROGANT AS [sic], AND EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE ASKED THE FAT JERK TO SPEAK, YOU WILL SEE THAT HE’S NOT IN FAVOR OF AN END TO POVERTY. DUMB, DUMB MOVE.

Of course, there’s always the possiblity that some of these folks are re-pranking us by pretending to be mad.

But I doubt it.

So this sets up a question in my mind: Is there anything we could have done differently so that everyone could enjoy a good laugh on April Fools’ Day? Given these responses, I might have done a few things differently–like try to make it really obvious it was a joke without completely blowing the punchline. But I still doubt we’d be able to get a good belly laugh out of everybody. So in all modesty, though I still think the video is hilarious, these responses were rather sobering. They did give me fresh insight into the limits of electronic communications and the dangers of making assumptions about your audience, magnifying the biblical warning:

For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle. If we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we guide their whole bodies. Or look at ships: though they are so large that it takes strong winds to drive them, yet they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great exploits. How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire!  And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell. For every species of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, but no one can tame the tongue—a restless evil, full of deadly poison. (James 3:2-8)

Given James’ warning about the power of the tongue, it’s ironic then that like most people, I find it easier to control my tongue when talking face to face than I do when sending an e-mail or leaving a comment on a Web site. Which is why I do my best not to take myself too seriously.

Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the Web Editor for Sojourners.

Categories: General, Humor
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • calledme
    I've always said, about what I've thought was a negative opinion of a sermon I've preached, that much as I hate to do it, I need to deal with what the parishioner heard, rather than justifying what I meant to say.

    That said, I also know that you can't write or speak and please everyone. People see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, and no amount of argument will change their minds.

    What is worrisome to me is the viciousness of the language in the negative posts. It's one thing to disagree with something someone else has written; it's another thing altogether to aim scathing criticism at one's character and intent. That's at least as bad, if not worse, than the intent and content of the satirical writing.

    I've also never seen anyone called or changed to a holy and useful life through the power of insults, anger and shaming.

    Personally, I thought it was great. And I don't think those who disagree with me have degraded themselves and the faith because they didn't like it. I would hope they would extend the same graciousness and respect to me.
  • I personally enjoyed the spoofs/parodies. I'm laughing, though, at the hateful Email that was sent b/c one anti-Rush person thought it was serious. I thought only conservatives were hateful people!

    I'm pretty critical of Sojo, but April Fools Day was a fun day. Not sure the Biden one was actually a spoof, with the exception of his comments about his own comments.
  • letjusticerolldown
    The main 'thumbs up" I want to give is to you for doing a follow-up post.

    Whether the follow-up is a summary/analysis/reflection--or as simple as the posting of a comment, "Thanks for reading and commenting on my post"--I think the follow-up profoundly helps establish a sense of dialogue on this blog.

    Thank you.
  • letjusticerolldown
    It is possible that most of the people who responded to the Limbaugh parody the way you desired did not comment on it. We enjoyed it and went on with our day; not wishing to burn our energy arguing over it.

    Another consideration is the nature of April Fool's Day. I don't see the Onion, SNL, or The Wittenburg Door as equivalents to April Fool's. I love that kind of humor--but persons like my mother and wife hated it.

    But April Fool's day is a bit different. A good April Fool's joke truly plays to the recipients unique sense of humor and wisdom--and truly fools them--makes them into a fool.

    The persons the Limbaugh piece worked on (as a true April Fools joke) were those who thought it to be true--not those who thought it to be funny. So if only a small percent took it to be true and were made fools of; how many of those felt a genuine humor at their being made a fool??
  • wynnsome
    I thought it was hilarious! I was one of those who actually believed it for the first few paragraphs. I enjoyed the joke, and I appreciate all you guys do to keep us informed.
  • SisterMarie
    The negative comments of those who were offended by the original Limbaugh post would have been somewhat more credible if they had expressed the same reaction to James Dobson's venomous prophecy about one week before the election on what an Obama presidency would look like in 2012. (And that presumably, was no joke.)
  • letjusticerolldown
    Who are you talking about?
    Why would have expressing the same thing (whatever that is) in response to James Dobson last year made this reaction more credible?
    What is the connection between the 2008 Dobson post and this post?
    Does this mean that however any of us did or did not respond to the Dobson prophecy (which wasn't a prophecy) is the basis on which our words on all other matters are deemed credible?

    i.e. I don't get your comment.
  • SisterMarie
    Okay. I'm going to write verrrrrrry slowly, choosing my words very carefully.

    On April Fools Day of 2009, Sojo posted five April Fools Jokes. Three of the five poked fun at liberals. It was quite obvious that all of them were jokes, and we liberal read the ones that poked fun at Biden, Obama, and Wallis - and we laughed. Apparently Rush's many dittoheads were truly offended that anyone would have the nerve to make fun of their conservative icon. The nerve of Sojo! The nerve of those of us who regard Limbaugh as both a hypocrite and a big *** ****.

    Now, what does all of this have to do with Dobson? Simply this. If you ignored all of the **** coming from Dobson. If you were truly not offended by the venom that Dobson unleashed, then why would anyone take umbrage at an April Fools Day post. Are there really conservative icons that one dare not write one critical word about - even if it is in an April Fools Day post which included three such posts which parodied the other side? Is a post that makes light of Rush equivalent to the unpardonable sin? Give me a break!
  • letjusticerolldown
    In your speaking verrrrrrrrrry slowly you bypassed some of my questions.

    I went back to figure out who you are talking about. I found one commenter, who I do not recall seeing on the site before state, "If you're simply going to make fun of people who don't agree with you, then what makes you any different from them (other than your particular convictions)?"

    The best I can tell is that proved to you there are many dittoheads offended anyone would make fun of their conservative icon.

    That seems a big jump in my mind. But maybe I missed the posts you are talking about.

    Since that commenter was not engaged in the conversation about James Dobson--I am not sure comparing responses to the two pieces is even possible.

    I don't mind your expression of your sentiments and how things look to you. I just didn't see a connection to any real people and real comments on this blog.
  • SisterMarie
    I went back to figure out who you are talking about. I found one commenter...LJRD

    The breakdown: 50 percent negative, 20 percent positive, 30 percent don’t realize or aren’t sure that it’s a joke. (Ryan Broderick Beiler's tabulation of the response to the original Limbaugh post)

    But maybe I missed the posts you are talking about....LJRD

    Given the millions of people who have ceded their brains to Limbaugh, I'm not surprised at the 50% negative reaction. However, for the 20% who did not realize that it was a joke - well, it reminds me of one of the characters who followed Dorothy down the Yellow Brick Road.
  • letjusticerolldown
    You take to task those with a negative response. For clarity I ask who you are talking about. You decline. I indicate I found one comment that remotely qualifies. And ask again. You decline.

    OK.

    So I looked again.

    Fifteen persons commented (including yourself):

    Thirteen accepted the post as a joke.

    One person (JRZ715) was ambivalent: "......but I'm not sure what to think of this. I don't visit this website much but I have been familiar with (and mostly supportive of) sojourners for years."

    One person did not like it (brgulker):" If you're simply going to make fun of people who don't agree with you, then what makes you any different from them (other than your particular convictions)?"
  • SisterMarie
    On the outside chance that you responded before reading Ryan Beiler's post above:

    The response to the original Limbaugh post "crashed the server." I have seen previous topics here at this site that attracted over 200 comments that did not crash the server. Therefore, I'm assuming that when Ryan tabulated the responses and reported 50% negative that he was telling the truth.
  • Lord_Voldemort
    With all the splicing, I thought it was pretty obvious it was a hoax. Didn't think it was very funny, but not at all offended.

    Would be interesting to see you try the opposite next year, with Jim Wallis suddenly moving right. That should make some heads explode.

    LV
  • danl95407
    I almost believed you. I thought God can move on anyone if he can change the hateful attitude of Rush Limbaugh
  • joiningtheconversation
    In fairness, I don't think the opposite of Rush Limbaugh caring about poverty (instead of mocking it and those who fight against it) is Jim Wallis moving right. There is plenty of room on the right without Rush, and it is Rush-- not the Right--that the joke was on. There are some lovely people on the right, and the joke was not on them.

    Therefore, I think the opposite would be Jim Wallis not caring about poverty anymore--and that would be tragically not-funny.

    I say that because the goal is not parties, but caring about poverty- Left, Right--all of us. And I say that not in a spirit of argument, but unity.
  • brgulker
    I'm really glad this thread was posted.

    I didn't care about the Rush video as much as I did the Copeland article. That article made me angry and really disappointed me.

    Thanks for posting this, and I hope that next year things are handled more responsibly.
  • joiningtheconversation
    I wrote this in response to the comments I read on April 1. Basically in response to the criticism posted, and because I wasn't seeing anyone else make these points. My primary response to the criticism is posted at the bottom in italics.

    http://joiningtheconversation.blogspot.com/2009...

    Those of us in the fight both against poverty and for bipartisanship might have a hard times shifting gears at times due to the serious nature of our work and the depth of the criticism *we* are used to (from Rush, for one). But we also need to be the kind of careful, thoughtful thinkers that got us into the fight for mercy and compassion in the first place. And in this case, I think we just might have overreacted. A bit.

    When I look at the root of the joke and the tone of that very root, well, I think it was a funny joke. And, that's why I wrote what I did...
  • duhsciple
    Uh oh. Just got off the phone with Rush. While he thought the piece was funny, he is planning revenge by showing up at the conference. That's the problem with practical jokes in my experience. Sometimes people like to get back at you!
  • Were that true, I think that would actually be kind of cool...
  • tmccool
    Yeah, the Limbaugh thing threw me at first too. But the Maddoff thing didn't. It was the obvious Photoshop job and only a few paragraphs in, if someone didn't get the joke they just weren't paying attention. So... if you use the Maddoff prank as your template, you might have a little less trouble on your hands.
  • SisterMarie
    All five of the April 1 posts included these two notes at the bottom:

    + Email this April Fools' blog post to a friend.
    + Share this April Fools' post on Facebook.

    If anyone was still clueless after reading the posts, the notes should have made it clear.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertisement
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008