@revelette1,
Really the only thing I know about Michael Savage is that those on the left hate him. They hate Rush Limbaugh too so that's not enough to convince me Savage is a lunatic.
Characterizing his statements (which were quoted) as
a call for government takeover of the media is a typical distortion intended to cast someone considered
right-wing in the worst of lights.
Since nothing he is purported to have said amounts to
a call for government takeover of the media there's good reason to question whether anything he actually said really supports the claim that
he also advocated for removing Rachel Maddow and others from the airwaves by the federal government
If his questions regarding taking control of Twitter or government taking control of social media sites are an accurate reflection of what he advocates, then, in this regard, he is, at the very least, wrong-headed.
His "demand" that Republicans “call a hearing and make the heads of CNN and MSNBC answer to them as to what they are doing to curtail the sneering hatred of Rachel Madcow in particular.” is absurd and would never be taken seriously by the Republican led Congress.
Considering that Media Matters directly linked Sarah Palin's use of "crosshair" symbols in a political ad and the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Gifford, it's pretty damned rich and highly hypocritical of Media Matters to report as anything but legitimate Savage's assertion, in his
tirade, that yesterday's shooting incident was inspired by extreme political actions, rhetoric and images.
Now, as with the Gifford shooting, I think it's unconscionable to directly link even fiery political rhetoric to the violent actions of evil and/or mad people, as deliberate or wantonly careless incitement, but David Brock the amoral, opportunistic and thoroughly despicable founder and former CEO of Media Matters obviously didn't agree.
Media Matters should never be relied upon as a source of any truth. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out they altered Savage's words that they quoted.