Glenn Beck: A Cause for Concern

Discussing all things political in NW Arkansas and beyond.
Post Reply
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Glenn Beck: A Cause for Concern

Post by Dardedar »

DAR
Before I had satellite radio I used to listen to Glenn Beck, briefly, on AM radio. When CNN picked him for a TV show I was so disgusted I wrote them a letter. Why does America constantly take it's most ignorant jabber mouths and give them the widest forum. It's money, greed, as dictated by the market. Truth and accuracy doesn't matter to these people. Information is a commodity and vehicle to make money. Beck is one of the worst for constant juvenile spin. A former alcoholic turned righteous mormon who gleefully talks about the end of the world, and the sooner the better. He appeals to people who might think Limbaugh is too intellectual. And like O'Reilly he pretends to be a fair minded independant.

Image

Zogby gives a good overview of why this trend should concern people.

Glenn Beck: A Cause for Concern

Glenn Beck represents a truly troubling trend in television journalism. Since May 2006, the radio talk show host has had his own one hour nightly program on CNN's Headline News channel. While the network may have hoped that Beck's flamboyant style would increase ratings, the cost to their integrity has been staggering.

It is important to note, from the outset, that Beck doesn't stand alone. The insertion of the personalities and style of radio talkshow hosts into mainstream television news programming has been taking place for a number of years now. Their crude, cynical and cutting edge commentary, their feigning the role of the common man, and their inflammatory "us versus them" rhetoric is now standard fare on many of the major networks.

The result of this trend is evident on a number of levels. There has been a coarsening and dumbing down of our political discourse on several issues of national importance. When Beck refers to President Carter as a "fathead" or speaks of Saudi leaders as "nut-jobs," serious discussion is displaced by crude and demeaning jabs.

There is the additional problem that instead of educating the public, this new breed of television pundits reduces issues to their lowest common denominator, thereby reinforcing preexisting, uninformed biases. Never shy to share an unenlightened view, Beck, for example, will note "I'm not an expert, but..." and then proceed to make his case using a mishmash of clichés that reflect the prejudices of conventional wisdom.

While much of the same could be said about a number of other similar personalities that now populate the airwaves, Beck comes with a significant difference. I have carefully reviewed the transcripts of Beck's shows and his so-called, obsessive crusade against radical Islam left me both horrified and profoundly concerned. In just the past two months, for example, one half of Beck's shows have focused on matters Muslim. Beck insists that he is not opposed to all Muslims, only what he refers to as the "10 percent who are evil." He then counters this observation by stating that the vast majority of good Muslims have been cowered into silence by the extremist 10 percent, so that they too stand indicted by their cowardice. Only when they do speak out, Beck says, will radical Islam be defeated and the rest of us be safe from their scourge. The net result of this circumlocution is that the majority of Muslims are to blame.

When Beck is not venting his own prejudiced view of Islam, he invites on-air guests who amplify his views. They are of three types: Israelis, right-wing Americans with a long-established axe to grind against Arabs and Muslims, and lastly, a handful of Muslims who are largely alienated and self-styled outcasts who have found their shtick striking out against their co-religionists.

His right-wing guests or Israelis, like former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (who was Beck's guest for an entire hour on a special program that aired three times in one month) are only too happy to reinforce Beck's views. His Muslim guests similarly serve to validate Beck's complaint about the broader Muslim community. In all of this, there is not even the pretense of balance.

The impact has been predictable and frightening. After I raised some concern that ABC's Good Morning America was hiring Beck to serve as a commentator on that once respected program, I received a taste of what Beck's impact has been. Emails from Beck's supporters have called me "an animal Muslim" (I'm a Catholic). They've told me that I don't belong in America (when in fact my family has lived in this country for over 100 years, serving in every branch of the military), and that I am shielding terrorists by refusing to protest against them (wrong on both counts, but my critics have obviously never read my denunciations of terrorism and terrorists).

And it is this that concerns me. We are, in fact, engaged in a troubling conflict against extremism fueled by religious fervor, both ours and theirs. What this period and this conflict require is intelligent discussion, not inflammatory rhetoric. To guide us through this, we need journalists like Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow and Peter Jennings; we don't need flame-throwers like Sean Hannity, Don Imus and Glenn Beck. Unfortunately, it's the latter we are getting more of. And it is this I find disturbing.

LINK
Barbara Fitzpatrick
Posts: 2232
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0

Post by Barbara Fitzpatrick »

So few Americans realize that fascism is an Italian word for corporate oligarchy - and the man who coined the term was Benito Mussolini. Il Duce was actually in power some 15 years longer than Hitler (and in fact, stopped Der Ferher in his first attempt at Austria - but switched sides when the League of Nations objected to Italy's invasion of Abyssinia). This is how it's done. Corporate-owned media creates a monolithic, monstrous "them" that is so dangerous "we" have to give up our rights and freedoms (and money, of course) to fight. Corporate money added to corporate-owned media puts like-minded politicians in power. The pols in power both pass laws that make the freedom loss permanent and funnel tax dollars into the corporate tills. By the time what's happening is obvious, it's usually too late - as it may be here and now. In which case, Hogeye's scenario of dissolution (minus the "happy families" outcome) is unfortunately likely.
Barbara Fitzpatrick
User avatar
Hogeye
Posts: 1047
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Contact:

Post by Hogeye »

Barbara, would you say that families in former Soviet Union are generally happier compared to the Soviet days?

Historical question re Mussolini and corporatism: There is a famous quote attributed to Mussolini...
Mussolini wrote:"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
Is this a legitimate quote, or merely heresay?

It is interesting that we both see the same facts and phenomena - an unholy alliance between (some) corporations and State - but come to quite different conclusions. In particular, you put the bulk of the blame on corporations, while I put the bulk of the blame on the State. You seem to hold all corporations as evil (even those not in cahoots with the State?), and take the State as relatively innocent as an institution and quite reformable. I take the institution of State to be unreformable, and corporations to be innocuous without State power. Put yet another way, you think corporations corrupt the State; I think the State corrupts corporations.


Sorry to hijack the thread, Darrel. So back to topic: It's hard for me to get worried about what's showing on the boob tube, since that media is outdated industrial era tech. The internet and WWW supercedes it. I get my news/opinions from the web; I never get news/opinions from TV. Instead of worrying about what people might see on TV, maybe it would be better to wean them off TV and get them wired.
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
Barbara Fitzpatrick
Posts: 2232
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0

Post by Barbara Fitzpatrick »

Unfortunately some 80% of the American public still gets its news from the 4 major TV networks (with CNN counting as a 5th that gets some overlap with what used to be the 3 major networks). That means it's important as to what's on them. I personally got rid of my TV in 2000.
Barbara Fitzpatrick
User avatar
Hogeye
Posts: 1047
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Contact:

Post by Hogeye »

Agreed. I'm simply suggesting that, if you want to get "activist" about it, you may do better by trying to get people to switch to the newer media than by trying to change boob-tube programming.
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
Post Reply