Glenn Beck SLAUGHTERS Arianna Huffington (not literally)

[fivepoint]

I had to specify 'not literally' in case Arianna was reading this forum and got confused. :)

Anyway, for anyone who's been following this hilarious display of stupidity on Arianna Huffington's part for the last few days, starting with her appearance on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday when she confronted Roger Ailes about Glenn Beck's supposed comments indicating he thought that Obama was going to literally "slaughter" Americans... Beck nailed her to the floor during his show tonight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsf86QSwhYc
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfyeo63Q0HE

The sad part, is that this even needed to be done by Beck. It's hilarious to watch all of the blinded liberals, Fox News haters, and HuffPo lovers go nuts on this issue calling for Beck to be terminated and much more because of something he said about the ECONOMY, and not about Obama.

If you need to catch up, go ahead and read Arianna's point of view of the whole issue before Beck's slaughtering of her on tonight's show... but make sure you go back and watch the clip... definitely entertaining. I wish I could have seen Arianna watch it.

"Glenn Beck goes after me... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/glenn-beck-goes-after-me_b_445195.html)"
"The backpedaling begins... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/glenn-beck-update-the-bac_b_446275.html)"

It's too bad Arianna has to reduce herself to making up false claims about Beck to try and defame him. I'd like to see her use some actually substantive arguments so we could see a real debate instead of an intellectually dishonest biased lie-off.

[Peace]

It's too bad I never will watch a sociopath who has his own TV show.

[fivepoint]

It's too bad I never will watch a sociopath who has his own TV show.

Looks like you might have something in common with most of the HuffPo readers. Too busy being blinded to even take a second to listen to the facts! Just listen to Arianna... she'll tell you what to think! :) Hahaha.

[Peace]

Looks like you might have something in common with most of the HuffPo readers. Too busy being blinded to even take a second to listen to the facts! Just listen to Arianna... she'll tell you what to think! :) Hahaha.


I don't watch her show either. Nor do I ever visit her website.

I think for myself. Thank you.:)

[Sydde]

Nobody really cares about the guy or what he has to say. He is even less credible than that other guy who is the subject of at least two current threads here.

[fivepoint]

Nobody really cares about the guy or what he has to say. He is even less credible than that other guy who is the subject of at least two current threads here.

Really? Because I think he's probably the #1 or #2 show on all of Cable news. He has like 10x the viewership of CNN or MSNBC in the same time slot. I'd say a LOT of people care about what he has to say. ;)

[Lord Blackadder]

Anyone who listens to either Huffington or Beck is a mindless drone, regardless of their political viewpoint.

I hate opinion journalism, it is ruining America. I wish we could use the entire staffs of Fox News and MSNBC to plug the hole in the ozone or something.

[flopticalcube]

Really? Because I think he's probably the #1 or #2 show on all of Cable news. He has like 10x the viewership of CNN or MSNBC in the same time slot. I'd say a LOT of people care about what he has to say. ;)
No. A lot of people watch him for entertainment, like SpongeBob Squarepants. He is a self-confessed rodeo clown and does a good job making people laugh.

[Peace]

Anyone who listens to either Huffington or Beck is a mindless drone, regardless of their political viewpoint.

I hate opinion journalism, it is ruining America. I wish we could use the entire staffs of Fox News and MSNBC to plug the hole in the ozone or something.

That is an oxymoron sir!

[Lord Blackadder]

That is an oxymoron sir!

Not in this country buddy. :(

They call themselves journalists but it's mostly either opinion, spin or outright fabrication.

[fivepoint]

Anyone who listens to either Huffington or Beck is a mindless drone, regardless of their political viewpoint.

I hate opinion journalism, it is ruining America. I wish we could use the entire staffs of Fox News and MSNBC to plug the hole in the ozone or something.

I guess I'm a mindless drone... I read HuffPo and watch Beck from time to time. Probably read HuffPo more. I like opinion journalism... the only difference is that the opinion isn't veiled in a thin attempt at 'fairness'. Journalism has never been opinion free. In fact, it's almost always been liberally biased.



No. A lot of people watch him for entertainment, like SpongeBob Squarepants. He is a self-confessed rodeo clown and does a good job making people laugh.

I doubt many people watch him "for laughs". If you want to laugh, you watch the Daily Show (which I always watch). People watch Beck because he talks about issues that no one else on TV is talking about. They watch him because he's actually doing in-depth analysis on the economy, on the constitution, and more. He has guests on that aren't spewing the same driven you get everywhere else. He actually talks to libertarians and economists who PREDICTED the economic collapse. They watch Beck because he offers things they can't find anywhere else.

[Peace]

Not in this country buddy. :(

They call themselves journalists but it's mostly either opinion, spin or outright fabrication.

I agree wholeheartedly. Murrow and Cronkite are probably rolling in their graves seeing this spectacle on television or on the internet called "news".

[fivepoint]

I'm anxious to see how Arianna tries to play this one off tomorrow. One thing is for sure... she won't be linking to this video. How could she? It clearly and explicitly explains why her entire argument is bunk and baseless. She'll most likely ignore that it ever happened and continue on with her attacks. Drama! Hilarious stupid drama!

[Lord Blackadder]

I'm anxious to see how Arianna tries to play this one off tomorrow. One thing is for sure... she won't be linking to this video. How could she? It clearly and explicitly explains why her entire argument is bunk and baseless. She'll most likely ignore that it ever happened and continue on with her attacks. Drama! Hilarious stupid drama!

We've turned the running of our country into a giant soap opera. We are truly doomed.

[macfan881]

I guess I'm a mindless drone... I read HuffPo and watch Beck from time to time. Probably read HuffPo more. I like opinion journalism... the only difference is that the opinion isn't veiled in a thin attempt at 'fairness'. Journalism has never been opinion free. In fact, it's almost always been liberally biased.





I doubt many people watch him "for laughs". If you want to laugh, you watch the Daily Show (which I always watch). People watch Beck because he talks about issues that no one else on TV is talking about. They watch him because he's actually doing in-depth analysis on the economy, on the constitution, and more. He has guests on that aren't spewing the same driven you get everywhere else. He actually talks to libertarians and economists who PREDICTED the economic collapse. They watch Beck because he offers things they can't find anywhere else.

I could not read that and held my self in with laughter wow :rolleyes:

Beck does not do any indepth things he just takes random thins and says oh wait this ancient dictator did something or make up random ********* that its not even funny heck he even Compaired Hitler to todays "liberals"

[Macky-Mac]

I guess I'm a mindless drone... I read HuffPo and watch Beck from time to time. .....

lol....that WOULD turn you into a mindless drone if you weren't one before

[SLC Flyfishing]

I've got to admit that was hilarious!

Economy
Economy
Economy
Economy
GENOCIDE!!!!!!

[fivepoint]

I've got to admit that was hilarious!

Economy
Economy
Economy
Economy
GENOCIDE!!!!!!

Hahaha! :D It makes perfect sense!

[yojitani]

The problem is that Glen Beck communicates at the intellectual level of an oxygen starved high school student. Clearly he wasn't talking about literal slaughter, but his unfortunate choice of metaphors conveys much more than the message he claims he intends to convey. Frankly, this is how 'news' operates in this country.

As to the point about 'opinion free' journalism, I would be surprised, fivepoint, if anyone would claim that news doesn't have or didn't have a bias. Are reasoned arguments also the domain of 'liberals'? I ask because as a representative of a 'conservative' (right wing) 'news' outlet, Fox fails to find time for reasoning. I guess reasoning is the reserve of the liberal elite out to slaughter America with socialism.

[Sydde]

...She'll most likely ignore that it ever happened ...

Mokusatsu

[bobber205]

Really? Because I think he's probably the #1 or #2 show on all of Cable news. He has like 10x the viewership of CNN or MSNBC in the same time slot. I'd say a LOT of people care about what he has to say. ;)

Porn is the most popular thing on the internet, does that make it the most credible thing on the internet? No.... :rolleyes:

[fivepoint]

Transcript of the smackdown (or should I say 'slaughter')

GLENN BECK, HOST: Good news - the left is getting desperate. When they throw out ridiculous attacks against you or me - usually when it's about me I don't ever bother responding on this program. But sometimes, it's just kind of fun. And I know they just do it to get attention and I kind of feel bad for them. I think they need it.

If I may show you, these are the ratings - these are the ratings of this program against its competition. Here is where the GLENN BECK PROGRAM started. Remember a year ago? Uh-oh. This is one is CNN. I like Wolf Blitzer. He is a nice guy.

And here is the other network. I love that. Kind of flat-lining there - you know what I mean? If you notice the hard core left-wing network, some might say this show is slaughtering them. But if I did, I'd want to point out I didn't mean "slaughter" literally. After all, you can't kill something that is already dead.

Bit that being said, Arianna Huffington, a.k.a. - I like to call her Media Matters after a few drinks - went on national television answer claimed that we are saying on this program that President Obama is going to slaughter people. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, FOUNDER, "HUFFINGTON POST": Aren't you concerned about the language that Glenn Beck is using, which is, after all, inciting the American people. There is a lot of suffering out there, you know. When he talks about people being slaughtered, about who is going to be the next -

ROGER AILES, CHAIRMAN FOX NEWS NETWORK: Well, he was talking about Hitler and Stalin slaughtering people. So I think he was probably accurate -

HUFFINGTON: No, he was talking about this administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: She went on, "He was talking about this administration." I actually had to look this up. I didn't think I had said anything. But she was so offended by this that she went on television to talk about it again, on the same network. May show?

The same network that had the flat-line - this one right here. So nobody watched it, so we are giving them a public service announcement right now. This network - they just had a guy compare the Republicans to the genocidal government of Cambodia just the day before she went on. So that's classy.

Now, she bases this claim on one TV segment. Now, remember, I want the play this segment for you. This is a serious point. This is no joke. I want to show you the segment here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(on camera): I told you yesterday buckle up your seat belt, America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OK. Wait a minute. I want you to know I don't actually mean - I'm not talking about buckling a literal seatbelt here. I'm saying get prepared because we're in for a bumpy road on the economy. Next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(on camera): Find the exit. There is one here, here and here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OK. I want you to know - I should point out here - not literally talking about exiting the country. We're talking about exiting the economic path we're headed on.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(on camera): Find the exit closest to you and prepare for crash landing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Oh, boy. Please, Arianna, I want you to know I'm not actually talking about a plane crashing here. I'm talking about a downturn in the economy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(on camera): Because this plane is coming down because the pilot is intentionally steering it into the trees.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Oh, my goodness. I have want to point out here I'm not actually talking about Barack Obama literally, you know, going to pilot school and becoming a pilot and loading Americans onto a plane and intentionally crash it into trees. No, no.

I was talking about the president intentionally implementing policies that are putting us on an unsustainable economic path. But watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(on camera): Most likely, it will happen sometime after Christmas. You're going to see this economy come up - we're already seeing it. And now, it's going to start coming back down again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

I should point out economies don't actually go up or down. They're not objects affected by gravity. Who knew? "Up" and "down" are terms describing the typical economic measures, expansion and contraction.

Now, just to review the topics that we've covered here so far, because we haven't gotten to this thing (UNINTELLIGIBLE) - we've talked about the economy. Then the economy. The economy. The economy. And again, the economy. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(on camera): And when you see the effects of what they're to the economy, remember these words.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

I'm going to speak slowly. This sentence signifies that the words to follow refer to the economy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(on camera): We will survive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

We're not talking about heart function here. We're not talking about all of us collectively continuing to breathe. No, no, no. We're still talking - don't want you to be confused - about the economy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(on camera): We'll do better than survive. We will thrive as long as these people are not in control. They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: There is the gotcha moment. Now, some would say that by introducing this last sentence, by saying, "When you see the effects on the economy, remember these words," that this last sentence might also be about speaking of the economy as well.

No. With 30 plus years of broadcast to pick from, Arianna Huffington makes this her main point. She is claiming that it's a reference to literal slaughter being carried out by our president.

So what she is saying in a nutshell is that we made this point. Let's first talk about the economy. Then the economy. Then the economy. Then the economy. And then I seamlessly moved to genocide without any kind of warning. Genocide by our president without any kind of transition or notice.

Now, if I were that talented of a TV host, I think I'd be winning by 20 times - back to the truck, please. I think I'd be winning by 20 times, instead of the measly 13 times that we're currently winning by.

The left is so desperate because you're winning. They're annoyed that they can't shut you or me up. Bask in it for a moment. All of this is a very, very good sign.

[killerrobot]

when she confronted Roger Ailes about Glenn Beck's supposed comments indicating he thought that Obama was going to literally "slaughter" Americans...


Just trying to point out the facts without any bias - she actually said "this administration" not Obama and you stated. Ailes in reply said Beck was talking about the Nazi regime. There seems to be quite a disconnect between videos in question.

[bradl]

What I, as the simple thinking man on the street, find funny about the entire lot (And no, I haven't seen Huffington's interview, and I'd rather clean floors with spit and a toothbrush than watch Glenn Beck's drivel) is that obviously it affected Beck. Otherwise he wouldn't have gone to such lengths to get back at her in such a dramatic fashion on his show. If he were as mature (or as egotistical) as he could be, he would have just brushed it off his shoulder like dust from a moth, and not give it a second thought.

But he didn't, so he wasn't, and quite obviously, it bothered him. So he decided to try to get even with a reponse salvo at Huffington's expense. Will she take the bait? Don't know. If she doesn't, then you know that she has bigger balls than he ever will.

What people don't understand is that in entertainment, yes, it is all about the ratings. But in life, it's all about the type of person you are, and that you can look back at your life with no regrets. I doubt Beck could ever do that.

BL.

[thepawn]

I doubt many people watch him "for laughs". If you want to laugh, you watch the Daily Show (which I always watch). People watch Beck because he talks about issues that no one else on TV is talking about. They watch him because he's actually doing in-depth analysis on the economy, on the constitution, and more.

Actually, he's said himself he's an entertainer, not a reporter:

Beck has referred to himself as an entertainer,[95] a commentator rather than a reporter,[96] a rodeo clown,[95] and identified with Howard Beale "When he came out of the rain and he was like, none of this makes any sense. I am that guy."[97] For a Barbara Walters ABC special, Beck was selected as one of America’s "Top 10 Most Fascinating People" of 2009.[98] Time Magazine describes Beck as "[t]he new populist superstar of Fox News" saying it is easier to see a set of attitudes rather than a specific ideology, noting his criticism of Wall Street, yet defending bonuses to AIG, as well as denouncing conspiracies against FEMA but warning against indoctrination of children by the AmeriCorps program.[99] What seems to unite Beck's disparate themes they note, is a sense of siege.[99] Time further describes Beck as "a gifted storyteller with a knack for stitching seemingly unrelated data points into possible conspiracies", proclaiming that he has "emerged as a virtuoso on the strings" of Conservative's discontent ... mining the timeless theme of the corrupt Them thwarting a virtuous Us."

It's all footnoted over on Wikipedia if you want the source references.

[.Andy]

We've turned the running of our country into a giant soap opera. We are truly doomed.
This is pretty much it. You've got people who are "excited" about this superficial culture war nonsense. It's inane.

[hulugu]

Anyone who listens to either Huffington or Beck is a mindless drone, regardless of their political viewpoint.

I hate opinion journalism, it is ruining America. I wish we could use the entire staffs of Fox News and MSNBC to plug the hole in the ozone or something.

Or as some kind of fuel additive.

I guess I'm a mindless drone... I read HuffPo and watch Beck from time to time. Probably read HuffPo more. I like opinion journalism... the only difference is that the opinion isn't veiled in a thin attempt at 'fairness'. Journalism has never been opinion free. In fact, it's almost always been liberally biased....

The idea that journalism should be "opinion free" comes from a misunderstanding about the phrase objectivity. The ideal of journalism is to cover stories with disinterest to a specific side, while giving all sides of an issue an opportunity to communicate with the larger public.

Moreover, the origination of American journalism is the colonial-era of the United States when dozens of small newspapers (really pamphlets made on hand-cranked presses) existed. In fact the Stamp Act passed by Parliament in 1765 was an attempt to stifle the noisy colonial papers, but this act backfired and led to the Stamp Revolt the same year. From that time on, newspapers were one of the ways that the disparate colonies could begin to cooperate against the British. Ben Franklin, once postmaster, so enjoyed newspapers that he allowed them to move through the post system for free.
The kind of journalism that existed in this period was partisan and opinion-based. There would later be Federalist and Anti-Federalists papers as well.

So, the idea that journalism has always been "liberally-biased" seems rather inconsistent with even the earliest history of the United States.

BTW, objectivity came even later, but was a response to the advent of advertising—more politically even stories were easier to sell. This continued as an ideal, although "muckrackers" like Upton Sinclair were more than happy to write diatribes and exposé in the 1920s. By the time of Edward R. Murrow, objectivity had become more ingrained with the ethics of journalism.

Today, we're essentially seeing the return of the partisan newspaper, although now mutated into the more popular medium of television programming. However, we're also seeing the inclusion of tabloid journalism, an increased obsession with stardom and media personalities like Beck and Huffington over and above actual news-gathering, informational analysis, or policy.

People watch Beck because he talks about issues that no one else on TV is talking about. They watch him because he's actually doing in-depth analysis on the economy, on the constitution, and more. He has guests on that aren't spewing the same driven you get everywhere else. He actually talks to libertarians and economists who PREDICTED the economic collapse. They watch Beck because he offers things they can't find anywhere else.

If you enjoy tabloid journalism, more power to you. But don't put cheese-whiz in my sandwich and call it jarlsburg.

We've turned the running of our country into a giant soap opera. We are truly doomed.

The funny thing is, while people are watching the soap opera histronics
between Beck and Huffington, they're missing out on much bigger stories that have real import.

Keep looking at the shiny objects kids.

[skunk]

The fact that people willingly watch such idiotic drivel says much about their own lack of judgment. Have you nothing better to do?

[Peterkro]

I didn't last thirty seconds, I fear for Americans if this is what passes for political debate,the man is clearly as dumb as a fence post.

[IntheNet]

Really? Because I think he's probably the #1 or #2 show on all of Cable news. He has like 10x the viewership of CNN or MSNBC in the same time slot. I'd say a LOT of people care about what he has to say. ;)

Of course the liberals are going to add Glenn Beck to their hate list and ignore his message of democracy; it was clear this past summer when the Town Meetings were being held across the nation and Glenn Beck detailed citizens and constituent rage at Washington overspending. Liberals interpreted that as racism and blamed Beck for it. Ms. Huffington was part of this liberal hate... In this case referenced, the language that Glenn Beck was using was specifically and only about the economy as Glenn clearly detailed; only an incompetent of Huffington's evident caliber would misunderstand such a simple economic concept. As is widely known, Ms. Huffington, and her lefty web HuffPost, contribute to the hate liberals espouse and in this case she is trying to smear Fox and Glenn; it was (and is) fairly easy for Glenn Beck to expose Huffington for what she is. Hope she got the message!

It is of little matter though; Glenn's ratings are huge as are Fox's own network ratings... real Americans know who to trust for fair and balanced news:

Fox's January Ratings Highest Since 2008 Election
NEW YORK February 2, 2010 (AP)
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=9732159
Fox News Channel is on a roll, with January its best month in prime-time ratings since the 2008 presidential election.

[OllyW]

It is of little matter though; Glenn's ratings are huge as are Fox's own network ratings... real Americans know who to trust for fair and balanced news:

What's a 'real American'? :confused:

[Peterkro]

... real Americans know who to trust for fair and balanced news:


So people in the U.S. who think Fox news is untrustworthy,reactionary,far right gibberish are not real Americans,what are they then?unreal Americians,surreal Americians,Fijians or maybe they're all Kenyans like the President.

[Sdashiki]

The man is a news entertainer.

If you take what he says as serious as you do the actual things that happen in this country by people with, I dont know, actual political power...I feel sorry for you.

Its as if you watch a clown talk about the stock market while making balloon poodles and you can't turn away...but you take it a step further and actually believe the poodles are real and can speak to you. :D

[Eraserhead]

I hate opinion journalism,

You could describe the Economist as opinion journalism too, but the thing is there opinions usually make quite a bit of sense.

[Rt&Dzine]

What's a 'real American'? :confused:

It's a phrase used by Reactionaries to belittle their opponents.

.

[Compile 'em all]

Really? Because I think he's probably the #1 or #2 show on all of Cable news. He has like 10x the viewership of CNN or MSNBC in the same time slot.

Transformers 2 made millions of dollars and it is a a garbage movie.

[Lord Blackadder]

You could describe the Economist as opinion journalism too, but the thing is there opinions usually make quite a bit of sense.

There is a place for opinion journalism - but I suppose what I meant is that I hate the opinion-dominated journalism that is prevalent in the US "news" media today. Opinions are part of the process, but the US "news" media force-feed viewers bias and propaganda.

The only difference between Glenn Beck and Steven Colbert or the SNL news is that Beck claims to be a real journalist, and people believe him. If Beck was on Comedy central I'd watch him and laugh....but he's actually trying to sell his insane opinions as real news, or Fox is at any rate.

[CaptMurdock]

The man is a news entertainer.

Y'know, I find it amazing, hilarious AND sad that these guys promote themselves The Only Purveyors Of The Truth (tm) in a world of bias and censorship...

...but when they called on their erroneous balloon juice, each of them, to a man, will say, "Hey, folks, I'm just an entertainer."

I'd pay real money if just once, one of these guys flat-out admitted, "Hey, I BS'ed you. What do you inbred bottom-feeding yahoos want for nothing? Professionalism?"

[mcrain]

Of course the liberals are going to add Glenn Beck to their hate list and ignore his message of democracy; it was clear this past summer when the Town Meetings were being held across the nation and Glenn Beck detailed citizens and constituent rage at Washington overspending. Liberals interpreted that as racism and blamed Beck for it. Ms. Huffington was part of this liberal hate... In this case referenced, the language that Glenn Beck was using was specifically and only about the economy as Glenn clearly detailed; only an incompetent of Huffington's evident caliber would misunderstand such a simple economic concept. As is widely known, Ms. Huffington, and her lefty web HuffPost, contribute to the hate liberals espouse and in this case she is trying to smear Fox and Glenn; it was (and is) fairly easy for Glenn Beck to expose Huffington for what she is. Hope she got the message!


When you choose to use certain language, it shows what you think about an issue. There are people on both sides that use inflammatory language, I don't deny that. However, it is disingenuous to rail against liberal hate and incompetence.

Glenn Beck's comment's weren't interpreted as racist. What he said was that President Obama "is, I believe, a racist." He was accusing the president of being racist against whites. His comments needed no interpretation.

As for all the liberal hate that you were talking about, there is a little more to the story. The actual liberal media (msnbc and the like) didn't go after the tea parties because people had legitimate fears of overspending. No, if you go back and look at what happened, you will see tea parties in which people were told that there were death panels, grandma was going to be killed, that the health plan was going to bankrupt the government, President Obama wasn't an American, he went to madrasses, he's a muslim, etc...

The tea party organizers, the pundits on FoxNews, the radio talkshow hosts... they were lying, or at best spreading half-truths in order to scare people so that they could either, hurt the president politically, or help their corporate allies (insurance companies and health care providers).

I can point to examples of conservative media making stuff up and using scare tactics. I can also point to examples of the real media and more so the liberal media pointing out the false statements, and that being called liberal bias or liberal hate.

If you lie, and get caught, it isn't bias against you. It's reporting the facts.

If you lie, get caught, and don't like it, it doesn't mean that the person who caught you hates you.

Maybe, it would just be easier to tell the truth.

(edit) The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html

I don't have a clue what this website is, but they quote the original news article I was too lazy to go find.

[leekohler]

Really? Because I think he's probably the #1 or #2 show on all of Cable news. He has like 10x the viewership of CNN or MSNBC in the same time slot. I'd say a LOT of people care about what he has to say. ;)

I don't. And I don't care about Arianna Huffington either.

There's something you need to understand, fivepoint. Liberals are not like conservatives. We don't give a crap about some liberal gasbag's opinion, like you do with gasbags like Beck, Limbaugh, etc.

Transformers 2 made millions of dollars and it is a a garbage movie.

Yep- everybody loves a train wreck.

[fridgeymonster3]

I'd rather watch my cat lick himself then watch, read, or listen to Beck. I couldn't care less whether he was using a metaphor or intentionally mixing his words. If he's talking about the economy then maybe someone should get him a thesaurus, because I'm not sure the word slaughter conveys what he was trying to say.

[rdowns]

She's Media Matters after a few drinks. (GB describing Arriana Huffington)

LMAO. Great line.

[IntheNet]

... Beck claims to be a real journalist...

How often do you watch his show? From your post I gather you haven't watched him at all, or viewed a snippet of his show. But, I'll let you answer that.

Having watched Glenn pretty faithfully, and a regular listener on the radio, I don't recall him making such pronouncements in that regard. But i"ll wait to hear your defense... Yet, in response to your claim (above), do you actually know anything about him? Moreover, what qualities do you ascribe to journalists? Just curious because to his credit in communications, Glenn Beck has been in radio since 1977; serving at 12 different stations in a variety of on-air formats including news, weather, comedy, and morning-drive DJ; since 2000 he has hosted the The Glenn Beck Program, first on WFLA (AM) in Tampa, Florida, then syndicated nationally (ranked 4th in the nation with over six and a half million listeners). On television, Glenn has held positions at CNN and ABC in a variety of contributor formats, to include opinion pieces and news reporting. Glenn Beck has written three New York Times-bestselling books, and is the publisher of Fusion Magazine. Beck is also the founder and CEO of Mercury Radio Arts, a multimedia production company through which he produces content for radio, television, publishing, the stage, and the Internet. All this, in addition to his number one rated cable show now on Fox. (Much of this detail on Beck I paraphrased from Wikipedia's entry on Glenn Beck so if you want the references read it for yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck).)

Thus, let me ask again; what qualities do you ascribe to journalists? While the above radio, television, and print media credential for Beck certainly would not make him Edward R. Murrow's professor, he is certainly more than fluent with radio, television, and the print media. Nonetheless, I am curious what your assessment of "journalist" is and what you're basing your condemnation on?

[Lord Blackadder]

Thus, let me ask again; what qualities do you ascribe to journalists? While the above radio, television, and print media credential for Beck certainly would not make him Edward R. Murrow's professor, I am curious what your assessment of "journalist" is and what you're basing your condemnation on?

Simple. He's on a "news" show, and he's talking politics. That makes him a journalist, or pundit if you like. But he uses propaganda techniques to attack liberals. That's all he does. Most of what he claims to be fact or reality has no basis in fact or is the result of torturous distortion of facts. This has been demonstrated time and time again.

If you like what you see, keep watching. I'm not angry with Glenn Beck because he's a right-wing pundit or because he says crazy things. I am upset because he's scary rabble-rousing false prophet who gets taken very seriously - lazy people just repeat his BS and allow it to inform their decision-making. He's not telling the truth, or anything even remotely resembling it, and as long as people like him exists on either side of the political spectrum we are just going to fight over pointless things while this country goes to hell - and it will be EVERYBODY'S fault. NOT the liberals. NOT the conservatives. EVERYBODY'S.

Like I said before, opinion "journalism" is ruining this country.

[mcrain]

But he uses propaganda techniques to attack liberals. That's all he does. Most of what he claims to be fact or reality has no basis in fact or is the result of torturous distortion of facts. This has been demonstrated time and time again.

Glenn Beck, the conservative commentator and self-proclaimed "rodeo clown", found a new hobby horse the other night — secretly "communist" and "fascist" art buried into the exterior design program of Rockefeller Center.

Read more: http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2009/09/04/glenn-beck-cracked-symbologist/#ixzz0eUYI5WhL

Oh, did anyone other than me notice how many political pundits on FoxNews used the term "political earthquake" while talking about the Mass. election, and shortly after Haiti?

Was that bad taste?

[leekohler]

Oh, did anyone other than me notice how many political pundits on FoxNews used the term "political earthquake" while talking about the Mass. election, and shortly after Haiti?

Was that bad taste?

Of course not. Don't you know that Obama caused the quake in Haiti to get his approval numbers up?

[fivepoint]

Before I respond to some of these posts, I think I should also point out how HILARIOUS it is that all of the liberals here refuse to even talk about the substance and actual topic of this thread. No one will even admit to the fact that Arianna has been making a fool out of herself by criticizing Beck for something that's so obviously false, it's sad. Almost as sad as how her sheeple HuffPo commenters follow her word like scripture! ;)

Anyway... feel free to comment on the actual OP at any time, guys.



What I, as the simple thinking man on the street, find funny about the entire lot (And no, I haven't seen Huffington's interview, and I'd rather clean floors with spit and a toothbrush than watch Glenn Beck's drivel) is that obviously it affected Beck. Otherwise he wouldn't have gone to such lengths to get back at her in such a dramatic fashion on his show. If he were as mature (or as egotistical) as he could be, he would have just brushed it off his shoulder like dust from a moth, and not give it a second thought.

But he didn't, so he wasn't, and quite obviously, it bothered him. So he decided to try to get even with a reponse salvo at Huffington's expense. Will she take the bait? Don't know. If she doesn't, then you know that she has bigger balls than he ever will.

What people don't understand is that in entertainment, yes, it is all about the ratings. But in life, it's all about the type of person you are, and that you can look back at your life with no regrets. I doubt Beck could ever do that.

BL.

You're kidding me, right? Huffington has a huge megaphone with her site and with ABC's "This Week", she blatantly lied, smeared Beck, and he's supposed to just 'suck it up' and ignore her? How ridiculous. All he did was point out how ridiculous her ATTACK on him was. 100% justified. The fact that she or anyone on her site has yet to respond today is clear evidence that they know how wrong they were and are too embarrassed to post his video for the site regulars to consume. Wish I could say I'm surprised!



Or as some kind of fuel additive.

The idea that journalism should be "opinion free" comes from a misunderstanding about the phrase objectivity. The ideal of journalism is to cover stories with disinterest to a specific side, while giving all sides of an issue an opportunity to communicate with the larger public.

Moreover, the origination of American journalism is the colonial-era of the United States when dozens of small newspapers (really pamphlets made on hand-cranked presses) existed. In fact the Stamp Act passed by Parliament in 1765 was an attempt to stifle the noisy colonial papers, but this act backfired and led to the Stamp Revolt the same year. From that time on, newspapers were one of the ways that the disparate colonies could begin to cooperate against the British. Ben Franklin, once postmaster, so enjoyed newspapers that he allowed them to move through the post system for free.
The kind of journalism that existed in this period was partisan and opinion-based. There would later be Federalist and Anti-Federalists papers as well.

So, the idea that journalism has always been "liberally-biased" seems rather inconsistent with even the earliest history of the United States.

BTW, objectivity came even later, but was a response to the advent of advertising—more politically even stories were easier to sell. This continued as an ideal, although "muckrackers" like Upton Sinclair were more than happy to write diatribes and exposé in the 1920s. By the time of Edward R. Murrow, objectivity had become more ingrained with the ethics of journalism.

Today, we're essentially seeing the return of the partisan newspaper, although now mutated into the more popular medium of television programming. However, we're also seeing the inclusion of tabloid journalism, an increased obsession with stardom and media personalities like Beck and Huffington over and above actual news-gathering, informational analysis, or policy.



If you enjoy tabloid journalism, more power to you. But don't put cheese-whiz in my sandwich and call it jarlsburg.



The funny thing is, while people are watching the soap opera histronics
between Beck and Huffington, they're missing out on much bigger stories that have real import.

Keep looking at the shiny objects kids.

There's a lot of issues here which I'd like to discuss, part of the thing to keep in mind is our 'soundbite' society, and how little time avg. people are willing to spend listening to the news. How does opinion journalism change this? Anyway, I feel this issue throws the thread too far off course. Maybe you'd be willing to start your own thread so we can discuss?



I don't. And I don't care about Arianna Huffington either.

There's something you need to understand, fivepoint. Liberals are not like conservatives. We don't give a crap about some liberal gasbag's opinion, like you do with gasbags like Beck, Limbaugh, etc.



Yep- everybody loves a train wreck.

Whoa! Did you just admit to being a LIBERAL, Lee? And I have to say, you might be on to something here... with the bankruptcy of Air America, the pending death of NY Times and other organizations, the horrible ratings of shows like Olbermann... coupled with the MASSIVE success of individuals like Rush, Beck, O'Reilly, etc. you just might be right! However, then how would we explain HuffPo, and the DailyKos, etc. There's clearly a market, perhaps the Liberals just don't get as excited, committed, or passionate as the conservatives do about their issues? That doesn't seem right.





Simple. He's on a "news" show, and he's talking politics. That makes him a journalist, or pundit if you like. But he uses propaganda techniques to attack liberals. That's all he does. Most of what he claims to be fact or reality has no basis in fact or is the result of torturous distortion of facts. This has been demonstrated time and time again.

If you like what you see, keep watching. I'm not angry with Glenn Beck because he's a right-wing pundit or because he says crazy things. I am upset because he's scary rabble-rousing false prophet who gets taken very seriously - lazy people just repeat his BS and allow it to inform their decision-making. He's not telling the truth, or anything even remotely resembling it, and as long as people like him exists on either side of the political spectrum we are just going to fight over pointless things while this country goes to hell - and it will be EVERYBODY'S fault. NOT the liberals. NOT the conservatives. EVERYBODY'S.

Like I said before, opinion "journalism" is ruining this country.

Beck isn't remotely considered a journalist. About 2% of his show is used to discuss 'news'. And even that us just being used as part of his larger opinion spiel. It's an OPINION program, obviously. It happens to be on a network which has news on most of the day. By your logic, everyone who writes in the 'opinion section' of the NYT is also a journalist? Interesting.




Back to the main topic... does anyone here agree with Arianna? That Beck actually said that he thinks the Obama Administration is going to slaughter Americans? :) Or are you all agreeing with Beck, that he said nothing of the sort?

[.Andy]

Does anyone here agree with Arianna?
I think it is pretty clear that the general consensus is that nobody is interested in the nonsense spewed by either irrelevant mouthpiece. In fact it speaks volumes of your politics that you are excited and motivated by such superficial petulant bickering.

And please stop with the culture wars nonsense.

[leekohler]

Whoa! Did you just admit to being a LIBERAL, Lee? And I have to say, you might be on to something here... with the bankruptcy of Air America, the pending death of NY Times and other organizations, the horrible ratings of shows like Olbermann... coupled with the MASSIVE success of individuals like Rush, Beck, O'Reilly, etc. you just might be right! However, then how would we explain HuffPo, and the DailyKos, etc. There's clearly a market, perhaps the Liberals just don't get as excited, committed, or passionate as the conservatives do about their issues? That doesn't seem right.


I admitted to being a liberal ever since the definition of the word became "anyone who disagrees with George Bush". Now, we all know that isn't the real definition, but since that's what "conservatives" call people who disagree with Bush, I'll proudly include myself.

And you still don't get it. We're passionate about issues, but we don't need to be preached at, or told what to think. We also recognize fools (like Olberman, Limbaugh, Beck and Coulter) when we see them, something you guys seem to have a problem with. You'll listen to anybody if they say what you want to hear.

I think it is pretty clear that the general consensus is that nobody is interested in the nonsense spewed by either irrelevant mouthpiece. In fact it speaks volumes of your politics that you are excited and motivated by such superficial petulant bickering.

And please stop with the culture wars nonsense.

Exactly- neither of those fools speak for me. I don't care to listen to their BS.

[abijnk]

Before I respond to some of these posts, I think I should also point out how HILARIOUS it is that all of the liberals here refuse to even talk about the substance and actual topic of this thread. No one will even admit to the fact that Arianna has been making a fool out of herself by criticizing Beck for something that's so obviously false, it's sad. Almost as sad as how her sheeple HuffPo commenters follow her word like scripture! ;)

Anyway... feel free to comment on the actual OP at any time, guys.


Ehem.

I think it is pretty clear that the general consensus is that nobody is interested in the nonsense spewed by either irrelevant mouthpiece. In fact it speaks volumes of your politics that you are excited and motivated by such superficial petulant bickering.

And please stop with the culture wars nonsense.

You see, fivepoint, the difference is that you care what these people say, and we don't.

[fivepoint]

#1 Rule in the Liberal Handbook
"If you're losing an argument, act like you don't care about the issue anyway."


Hahaha, there are like daily threads in this forum (started by liberals) about Beck, about Limbaugh, about Olbermann, about an article on the Dailiy Kos or on HuffPo. Seems to me that you guys really DO care about what they say, just very selective on what to admit to when the chips are down!

The difference is, I can admit to consuming this content, liking some of it, not liking some of it, but at least being honest.

Bottom line, these popular sources for opinion and news are far from perfect... in fact, they often times deal with the lowest common denominator and speak only to the issues which have the most lightening rod potential. However, not everyone will sit down and read a detailed book or analysis on a topic and rely on these people to give them the view from 30,000 feet. Beck is not particularly smart, but he talks about important issues and has on some important guests. Most HuffPo content is biased drivel, but it's well presented and a great way to get a lot of information quickly. Either way, if you're smart enough to understand the flaws, even these info sources can be entertaining/interesting/informative.

Oh, and Lee... Puhlease! Anyone who disagrees with Bush? I guess that would make me a liberal? Bush was a fiscal liberal and everyone knows it. He stood for big government, big debt, and big entitlement programs. Liberal, liberal, liberal.

[bradl]

You're kidding me, right? Huffington has a huge megaphone with her site and with ABC's "This Week", she blatantly lied, smeared Beck, and he's supposed to just 'suck it up' and ignore her? How ridiculous. All he did was point out how ridiculous her ATTACK on him was. 100% justified. The fact that she or anyone on her site has yet to respond today is clear evidence that they know how wrong they were and are too embarrassed to post his video for the site regulars to consume. Wish I could say I'm surprised!


If you're smart, and know better than to take the bait, yes. And in a sense, you're implying that you would do the same thing and take the bait. Now you see the wisdom in 'sticks and stones can break my bones...'

Plain and simple.

Now, if she did what you and Beck claim that she did, shame on her, and I am not going to deflect that, like some people here would *coughchokeinthenethackcough*.. If she did it, she did wrong. But that doesn't mean that Beck has to respond to it. Now it drops him down to her level. That's stupidity there.

It's amazing how something like this and a response like this makes some people lose all rationale.

BL.

[leekohler]

#1 Rule in the Liberal Handbook
"If you're losing an argument, act like you don't care about the issue anyway."


Hahaha, there are like daily threads in this forum (started by liberals) about Beck, about Limbaugh, about Olbermann, about an article on the Dailiy Kos or on HuffPo. Seems to me that you guys really DO care about what they say, just very selective on what to admit to when the chips are down!

Point to a thread that I have started linking to any of those sites. I do not link to opinion pieces or editorials. I find it an abhorrent practice.

Oh, and Lee... Puhlease! Anyone who disagrees with Bush? I guess that would make me a liberal? Bush was a fiscal liberal and everyone knows it. He stood for big government, big debt, and big entitlement programs. Liberal, liberal, liberal.

Bush was not a liberal, fivepoint. Sorry he sucked, but you guys have to own him. He was a fascist if anything. And that's what? Oh yeah- right wing.

If you're smart, and know better than to take the bait, yes. And in a sense, you're implying that you would do the same thing and take the bait. Now you see the wisdom in 'sticks and stones can break my bones...'

Plain and simple.

Now, if she did what you and Beck claim that she did, shame on her, and I am not going to deflect that, like some people here would *coughchokeinthenethackcough*.. If she did it, she did wrong. But that doesn't mean that Beck has to respond to it. Now it drops him down to her level. That's stupidity there.

It's amazing how something like this and a response like this makes some people lose all rationale.

BL.

That's the truth. No one will ever accuse Beck of being a member of Mensa.

[fivepoint]

If you're smart, and know better than to take the bait, yes. And in a sense, you're implying that you would do the same thing and take the bait. Now you see the wisdom in 'sticks and stones can break my bones...'

Plain and simple.

Now, if she did what you and Beck claim that she did, shame on her, and I am not going to deflect that, like some people here would *coughchokeinthenethackcough*.. If she did it, she did wrong. But that doesn't mean that Beck has to respond to it. Now it drops him down to her level. That's stupidity there.

BL.

I'd have to disagree with you on some level there. For example, one thing you're not considering is ratings/viewership. My personal guess is that the conservative 'hits' on the HuffPo since this all went down have probably gone through the roof! Perhaps its a calculated move to increase traffic on behalf of Arianna.

As for Beck, I think he did a pretty straight-forward point-by-point response to the accusation, and successfully made it a non-issue to anyone who's paying attention. Certainly there were some HuffPo readers watching Beck last night to see if there was a reaction, and now he probably just came off to them as more of a straight-shooter than before. Might just have picked up some audience members.

I don't think it drops Beck down to her level unless he's making stuff up that she said. Although you might be right that it could be perceived as petty and a waste of time. Being Beck, you certainly wouldn't want to dwell on it.





It's amazing how something like this and a response like this makes some people lose all rationale.

BL.

Truth.

[.Andy]

[Liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals liberals.
Mindless culturewars drivel.

If you're intersted in discussing the horrible state of race to the bottom political opinion (self-styled right or left pundits) in the US or elsewhere let us know. If you want to continue with this petulant name calling cheerleading nonsense it looks like you're going to be on your own. You're not getting a rise out of anyone interested in supporting this Arianna individual so you can stoke you indignation. Nobody is interested in either pundit.

As Lee pointed out the majority of posters don't invest their emotion or shape their politics on frothing television personalities.

[leekohler]

Mindless culturewars drivel.

If you're intersted in discussing the horrible state of race to the bottom political opinion (self-styled right or left pundits) in the US or elsewhere let us know. If you want to continue with this petulant name calling cheerleading nonsense it looks like you're going to be on your own. You're not getting a rise out of anyone interested in supporting this Arianna individual so you can stoke you indignation. Nobody is interested in either pundit.

As Lee pointed out the majority of posters don't invest their emotion or shape their politics on frothing television personalities.

Stop trying to be reasonable. Fivepoint won't understand what you're saying. You're just a "liberal" anyway. :rolleyes:

BTW- I don't even have cable.

[fivepoint]

Mindless culturewars drivel.

If you're intersted in discussing the horrible state of race to the bottom political opinion (self-styled right or left pundits) in the US or elsewhere let us know. If you want to continue with this petulant name calling cheerleading nonsense it looks like you're going to be on your own. You're not getting a rise out of anyone interested in supporting this Arianna individual so you can stoke you indignation. Nobody is interested in either pundit.

As Lee pointed out the majority of posters don't invest their emotion or shape their politics on frothing television personalities.

I'd be more than happy to discuss the culturwars with you, .Andy. Like I said earlier, if you had actually read my post, I think this and opinion journalism's rise are important things to discuss. This thread, is aimed at this particular issue. Huffington vs. Beck. It's meant for individuals interested in the current feud and who want to discuss it. Since you obviously have nothing valuable to offer to the conversation, other than criticizing the very need to have the conversation, I suggest you leave the thread and discontinue writing what are essentially trollish posts. Stay on topic, or start your own topic.

Looking forward to your culture wars thread!


Stop trying to be reasonable. Fivepoint won't understand what you're saying. You're just a "liberal" anyway. :rolleyes:

BTW- I don't even have cable.

It was only a matter of time before you went to the personal attacks. Congrats on lasting so long. I'm trying to have a serious conversation here though, so please... move on. Let's talk about the issue presented in the OP, if you dont' mind.

[bradl]

I'd have to disagree with you on some level there. For example, one thing you're not considering is ratings/viewership. My personal guess is that the conservative 'hits' on the HuffPo since this all went down have probably gone through the roof! Perhaps its a calculated move to increase traffic on behalf of Arianna.


And here we get to the aforementioned drones. Viewers and ratings don't mean **** when you're talking about your character and type of person you are. If that is a 'major factor' as you say, then from that simple thinking man's point of view, they have both dropped themselves from any type of 'journalist' to 'infotainment', and both should be ignored.

And to be honest, most people really aren't going to care (and no, that doesn't make them a liberal), because they could care less to get into a public spat between people who aren't or don't concern them. The #1 person in people's lives, as far as they are concerned, is themselves.


As for Beck, I think he did a pretty straight-forward point-by-point response to the accusation, and successfully made it a non-issue to anyone who's paying attention. Certainly there were some HuffPo readers watching Beck last night to see if there was a reaction, and now he probably just came off to them as more of a straight-shooter than before. Might just have picked up some audience members.


You totally miss the point. The point is that he didn't need to respond at all. If he didn't respond, not only would he still have the ratings that he has, but he would also prove to his viewers out there that he is a better person than Huffington. That would have not only increased his ratings and viewership, but also give him a bit more credibility with his viewers. Instead, he blew it, all for the sake of ratings. Ratings are short term, unstable, and inconsistent; Once you screw up and your show is cancelled, you're screwed. Case in point: Jay Leno.

Integrity, Credibility, and Character stay with you for the rest of your life.


I don't think it drops Beck down to her level unless he's making stuff up that she said. Although you might be right that it could be perceived as petty and a waste of time. Being Beck, you certainly wouldn't want to dwell on it.


Plain terms here. She said something about him. Opening salve. She dropped down a level, because she came out and blasted him. He responded, doing the same exact thing, dropping him down to her level. She shouldn't have said anything, but that didn't mean that he had to say anything either. And that's a simple elementary school lesson. How quickly people forget.

BL.

[Sdashiki]

Truth.

HE WAS TALKING ABOUT YOU!

Jeez. :rolleyes:

[beatzfreak]

Before I respond to some of these posts, I think I should also point out how HILARIOUS it is that all of the liberals here refuse to even talk about the substance and actual topic of this thread. No one will even admit to the fact that Arianna has been making a fool out of herself by criticizing Beck for something that's so obviously false, it's sad. Almost as sad as how her sheeple HuffPo commenters follow her word like scripture! ;)

Anyway... feel free to comment on the actual OP at any time, guys.




They have talked about the substance, which seems to have been lost on you. Here's a reminder from a link in your original post and Arianna's response:

The crux of the matter was never whether Glenn Beck really believes Barack Obama is planning to actually slaughter Americans. It's the damage being done by the inflammatory rhetoric and imagery he constantly uses. The evoking of "slaughter" and "killing sprees" and a president who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" is meant to play into the public's legitimate anxiety over the economy -- and fan the flames of fear.

And that brings us back to the question I originally asked Roger Ailes on This Week: "Aren't you concerned about the language that Glenn Beck is using -- which is, after all, inciting the American people?"

The problem is, people get so caught up in the "he said she said" that they forget the original context.

[bradl]

HE WAS TALKING ABOUT YOU!

Jeez. :rolleyes:

To an extent, yes. But fivepoint can have a decent conversation and debate about things like this. Others here most certainly can not, and fall under this. I've already made the point about who can and can't across many different threads. But primarily, I was talking about people who fire shots like this (Huffington) and those stupid enough to respond (Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.).

BL.

[fivepoint]

And here we get to the aforementioned drones. Viewers and ratings don't mean **** when you're talking about your character and type of person you are. If that is a 'major factor' as you say, then from that simple thinking man's point of view, they have both dropped themselves from any type of 'journalist' to 'infotainment', and both should be ignored.

And to be honest, most people really aren't going to care (and no, that doesn't make them a liberal), because they could care less to get into a public spat between people who aren't or don't concern them. The #1 person in people's lives, as far as they are concerned, is themselves.



You totally miss the point. The point is that he didn't need to respond at all. If he didn't respond, not only would he still have the ratings that he has, but he would also prove to his viewers out there that he is a better person than Huffington. That would have not only increased his ratings and viewership, but also give him a bit more credibility with his viewers. Instead, he blew it, all for the sake of ratings. Ratings are short term, unstable, and inconsistent; Once you screw up and your show is cancelled, you're screwed. Case in point: Jay Leno.

Integrity, Credibility, and Character stay with you for the rest of your life.



Plain terms here. She said something about him. Opening salve. She dropped down a level, because she came out and blasted him. He responded, doing the same exact thing, dropping him down to her level. She shouldn't have said anything, but that didn't mean that he had to say anything either. And that's a simple elementary school lesson. How quickly people forget.

BL.

No, I get your point completely, I was just trying to help you see another side of the issue. If you're operating in a vaccuum, and the only things you're concerned about are the things you mentioned (Integrity, Credibility, and Character, or whatever) you might be exactly right. However, the issue is more complex than that... to which I'm sure you would agree.

Now, one thing I wanted to check with you on is that you don't simply think that defending one's self is something that should malign your character or 'sink you down to their level'. Certainly you don't think that when Barack Obama comes to the podium and says "Hey, this mess was here before I arrived." puts him at the same level as Bush? Merely defending one's self does not equate to lessening of your character. In fact, I'd say that walking through life unwilling to stand up for your honor is pretty weak character.

Now, when the defense turns into an attack on the other individual, I think you're right in many instances.... and the forthcoming debate between the two usually leads to both parties saying things they aren't proud of.

[leekohler]

It was only a matter of time before you went to the personal attacks. Congrats on lasting so long. I'm trying to have a serious conversation here though, so please... move on. Let's talk about the issue presented in the OP, if you dont' mind.

I find it extremely difficult to believe you expect to have a serious conversation when you post threads with titles as inflammatory as this one. But you go on and think that if you want.

I'd be more than happy to discuss the culturwars with you, .Andy. Like I said earlier, if you had actually read my post, I think this and opinion journalism's rise are important things to discuss. This thread, is aimed at this particular issue. Huffington vs. Beck. It's meant for individuals interested in the current feud and who want to discuss it. Since you obviously have nothing valuable to offer to the conversation, other than criticizing the very need to have the conversation, I suggest you leave the thread and discontinue writing what are essentially trollish posts. Stay on topic, or start your own topic.

Looking forward to your culture wars thread!


BTW- I was right. You didn't understand .Andy at all. It wasn't a personal attack. It was a statement of truth.

[fivepoint]

I find it extremely difficult to believe you want to have a serious conversation when you post threads with titles as inflammatory as this one. But you go on and think that if you want.

Come on, Lee! You know you like my thread titles! Very attention-getting, relevant, and sometimes humorous. You're a closet fan of my thread titles, and I'm ok with that. ;)

[bradl]

No, I get your point completely, I was just trying to help you see another side of the issue. If you're operating in a vaccuum, and the only things you're concerned about are the things you mentioned (Integrity, Credibility, and Character, or whatever) you might be exactly right. However, the issue is more complex than that... to which I'm sure you would agree.

Now, one thing I wanted to check with you on is that you don't simply think that defending one's self is something that should malign your character or 'sink you down to their level'. Certainly you don't think that when Barack Obama comes to the podium and says "Hey, this mess was here before I arrived." puts him at the same level as Bush? Merely defending one's self does not equate to lessening of your character. In fact, I'd say that walking through life unwilling to stand up for your honor is pretty weak character.


No. There is a difference between defense and offense, and a choice to make when you do it. Defending yourself is one thing. When you make the choice to defend yourself by doing the exact reciprocal thing to the person that started this, that sinks you to their level. So goes the old saying 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth'. So goes another saying: Two wrongs don't make a right.

Think back to the Karate Kid, Part II. All those times that Sato and his nephew called Miyagi a coward, trying to incite him. Miyagi brushed it off, because he knew it was just that, inflammatory. When it became important, and other people's livelihoods were involved, Miyagi responded. There is your difference. He fought for not just his honour and character, but others as well. That's what made Miyagi win, and without a shot from him being thrown.


Now, when the defense turns into an attack on the other individual, I think you're right in many instances.... and the forthcoming debate between the two usually leads to both parties saying things they aren't proud of.

Very very true.

BL.

[Rt&Dzine]

Before I respond to some of these posts, I think I should also point out how HILARIOUS it is that all of the liberals here refuse to even talk about the substance and actual topic of this thread. No one will even admit to the fact that Arianna has been making a fool out of herself by criticizing Beck for something that's so obviously false, it's sad. Almost as sad as how her sheeple HuffPo commenters follow her word like scripture! ;)

Anyway... feel free to comment on the actual OP at any time, guys.


Why am I supposed to be upset about what Arianna and Beck say about each other? I'd be more interested in what they say about a particular politician.

[leekohler]

Come on, Lee! You know you like my thread titles! Very attention-getting, relevant, and sometimes humorous. You're a closet fan of my thread titles, and I'm ok with that. ;)

They're inflammatory garbage meant to irritate people. Nothing more.

[hulugu]

Before I respond to some of these posts, I think I should also point out how HILARIOUS it is that all of the liberals here refuse to even talk about the substance and actual topic of this thread.

There's not much in the OP to talk about. Glenn Beck is better at the game than Huffington...

No one will even admit to the fact that Arianna has been making a fool out of herself by criticizing Beck for something that's so obviously false, it's sad. Almost as sad as how her sheeple HuffPo commenters follow her word like scripture! ;)

Anyway... feel free to comment on the actual OP at any time, guys.

Well, part of this is, I won't watch YouTube videos so I don't really feel like I can comment on what Beck actually said that got Huffington so riled up, nor can I comment on the various discussions. Transcripts would be fantastic because then we could talk about what was actually said.


There's a lot of issues here which I'd like to discuss, part of the thing to keep in mind is our 'soundbite' society, and how little time avg. people are willing to spend listening to the news. How does opinion journalism change this? Anyway, I feel this issue throws the thread too far off course. Maybe you'd be willing to start your own thread so we can discuss?

I'm not quite sure where to begin, but maybe if I find a specific issue to frame it with, sure.

Part of my point was to illustrate that opinion journalism wasn't really new, but rather was a throwback to pre-Penny Press structures and the gains we've made with the inclusion of objectivity and factual reporting may go away—or at least become a niche product for those who can afford it, while the majority of the country subsists on scraps of knowledge, garnered from the food fight between two fools.

Additionally, I would argue that Beck is not a journalist, but a raw propagandist, a modern day Father Coughlin.

Whoa! Did you just admit to being a LIBERAL, Lee? And I have to say, you might be on to something here... with the bankruptcy of Air America, the pending death of NY Times and other organizations, the horrible ratings of shows like Olbermann... coupled with the MASSIVE success of individuals like Rush, Beck, O'Reilly, etc. you just might be right! However, then how would we explain HuffPo, and the DailyKos, etc. There's clearly a market, perhaps the Liberals just don't get as excited, committed, or passionate as the conservatives do about their issues? That doesn't seem right.

You're conflating too many things together.

First, the "[im]pending death of the NY Times" isn't because of the dispassion of liberals, but rather because the economic model that supported newspapers like the Times, not to mention hundreds of local papers of varying political flavors, has collapsed. This has to do with the internet news engines like Google News, increasing competition of other forms of media—Fox News, and HuffPo or DailyKos—and faltering advertising revenue.

Secondly, "liberals" appear to be more interested in a varied diet of news organizations. This tends to diffuse their relationship with media and makes it more difficult to support new media companies.
I don't really think you can divine much more than that.

Thirdly, if we ascribe newspapers as "liberal" along with news-magazines, then the "liberal" sphere is actually quite massive and includes the Hearst Corporation, WPNI, as well as NBC.

Again, "liberal" media is diffuse, or rather "conservative" media is actually quite concentrated to a few outlets.

[fivepoint]

No. There is a difference between defense and offense, and a choice to make when you do it. Defending yourself is one thing. When you make the choice to defend yourself by doing the exact reciprocal thing to the person that started this, that sinks you to their level. So goes the old saying 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth'. So goes another saying: Two wrongs don't make a right.

Think back to the Karate Kid, Part II. All those times that Sato and his nephew called Miyagi a coward, trying to incite him. Miyagi brushed it off, because he knew it was just that, inflammatory. When it became important, and other people's livelihoods were involved, Miyagi responded. There is your difference. He fought for not just his honour and character, but others as well. That's what made Miyagi win, and without a shot from him being thrown.



Very very true.

BL.

All I'm going to say, is that I'm so impressed with your Karate Kid II reference... that I'm just going to cede the point. Touché.

There's not much in the OP to talk about. Glenn Beck is better at the game than Huffington...

Well, part of this is, I won't watch YouTube videos so I don't really feel like I can comment on what Beck actually said that got Huffington so riled up, nor can I comment on the various discussions. Transcripts would be fantastic because then we could talk about what was actually said.


You won't watch YouTube videos? Not even David after Dentist? BTW, the transcript was already provided by me... in post #22 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9208945&postcount=22) of this thread.

BTW, Huffington is pretty politically adept. She's no slouch... not by a long shot. Beck just happens to have the truth on his side, which makes arguments generally much easier to craft.

[Lord Blackadder]

Certainly there were some HuffPo readers watching Beck last night to see if there was a reaction, and now he probably just came off to them as more of a straight-shooter than before. Might just have picked up some audience members.

Nope. Straight-shooter he is not. He is unhinged.

Arianna Huffington is a smug, whiny arch-liberal partisan hack. Glenn Beck is a paranoid, shouty right-wing clown....

...and I'm being totally honest with you when I say really don't care about either of them or their "opinions". What does get my hackles up is when people take them seriously. Huffington and Beck are dabbling in reality and serious politics - something neither one of them seems well suited to handle.

And if you want to address the original thread topic even more directly than that, I will: Glen Beck accomplished absolutely nothing by "interviewing" Huffington on his show. Just as Chris Matthews accomplishes nothing by tearing into conservative politicians on Hardball. None of us change our opinions as a result. All it serves to do is harden the opinions of the already hard-core viewers.

[abijnk]

#1 Rule in the Liberal Handbook
"If you're losing an argument, act like you don't care about the issue anyway."


Hahaha, there are like daily threads in this forum (started by liberals) about Beck, about Limbaugh, about Olbermann, about an article on the Dailiy Kos or on HuffPo. Seems to me that you guys really DO care about what they say, just very selective on what to admit to when the chips are down!


But you don't get it... The reason we rail against GB and others is because the people on his side actually listen to him. And take him seriously. That's dangerous.

[fivepoint]

Nope. Straight-shooter he is not. He is unhinged.

Arianna Huffington is a smug, whiny arch-liberal partisan hack. Glenn Beck is a paranoid, shouty right-wing clown....
You know, those aren't actually HORRIBLE descriptions of these two. I think their both a bit more than this... but at times they can both be exactly as you describe them.


...and I'm being totally honest with you when I say really don't care about either of them or their "opinions". What does get my hackles up is when people take them seriously. They are dabbling in reality, something neither one of them seems well suited to handle.

But you don't get it... The reason we rail against GB and others is because the people on his side actually listen to him. And take him seriously. That's dangerous.

It's unfair to say things like 'Glenn Beck is NEVER worth taking seriously', or 'Keith Olbermann is NEVER right', or 'Arianna Huffington never has a fair criticism.' Glenn Beck, for example, took a lot of heat before the big financial collapse for loudly and clearly predicting that it would come. He was one of the first major voices on tv/radio who was interviewing guests who were predicting the collapse, etc. I thin the real danger is individuals consuming content from these types of individuals who NEVER THINK CRITICALLY about what they're hearing... comparing and contrasting it with content they've absorbed elsewhere and their own personal experiences. I enjoy all of these info sources, partly because I can take them all with a grain of salt. Is Beck always right? HARDLY. Is he generally OVER THE TOP? Yes. But does he talk about some really important issues that unfortunately aren't being discussed in any depth elsewhere? YES. Does Beck devote entire hour-long shows to the economy when other programs wouldn't dare spending more than 10 minutes for fear of lost viewership? YES.

These TV programs/websites/etc. in and of themselves aren't bad. They can offer good information, and good commentary. If some people take them as pure gospel without critical thinking... that's where the danger arrives. It happens on both sides.

[Lord Blackadder]

These TV programs/websites/etc. in and of themselves aren't bad. They can offer good information, and good commentary. If some people take them as pure gospel without critical thinking... that's where the danger arrives. It happens on both sides.

I agree that all these "news" shows are not totally devoid of fact, but why should we have to sift through so much utter crap to find it? I think it's unfair to us, the viewer, to be given such shoddy "news". And foolish for us to listen to it.

And more to the point, why do we let them work so hard to poison the discourse? I firmly believe that if these clowns weren't spearheading the political debate in this country, we would all be having much more productive discussions and actually might <gasp!> come to a useful understanding of sorts on many issues. You never hear Glenn Beck or Kieth Olberman talk about trying to meet in the middle, unless they go on to blame the opposition for something.

I blame the public at large for lazily buying into the garbage, but these talking heads are fanning the flames gleefully. It's wrong. Much of the political anger we have towards each other is facilitated by the media. I'm just not buying their product any more. I'm over it.

[Compile 'em all]

Ehem.



You see, fivepoint, the difference is that you care what these people say, and we don't.

slam dunk!

[abijnk]

It's unfair to say things like 'Glenn Beck is NEVER worth taking seriously', or 'Keith Olbermann is NEVER right', or 'Arianna Huffington never has a fair criticism.'

Probably why I've never said that... *shrug*

[Gelfin]

It's unfair to say things like 'Glenn Beck is NEVER worth taking seriously'

Some opinion-themed entertainers are so intentionally offensive in their mission to inflame the most unsophisticated and credulous segment of their audience that they do not deserve the sort of attention that would wait for any "stopped clock" moments they may stumble into.

Being ignored if he ever finds a genuine point is an entirely justifiable consequence of his outrageous behavior the rest of the time. If Glenn Beck is ever right, then somebody smarter and more honest than he is will advance the same idea with infinitely more rationality and civility than Beck can muster.

If the man wants to be taken seriously at any point, he should go back to kindergarten and revisit "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." He's already in the intellectual neighborhood, so it shouldn't be out of his way.

[leekohler]

Some opinion-themed entertainers are so intentionally offensive in their mission to inflame the most unsophisticated and credulous segment of their audience that they do not deserve the sort of attention that would wait for any "stopped clock" moments they may stumble into.

Being ignored if he ever finds a genuine point is an entirely justifiable consequence of his outrageous behavior the rest of the time. If Glenn Beck is ever right, then somebody smarter and more honest than he is will advance the same idea with infinitely more rationality and civility than Beck can muster.

If the man wants to be taken seriously at any point, he should go back to kindergarten and revisit "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." He's already in the intellectual neighborhood, so it shouldn't be out of his way.

Now that's the truth. My favorite was when he cried like a little kid on his show because things just weren't going his way.

Well, actually that's the only time I've ever seen him. It was unbelievably shameless, and I knew I didn't need to see him anymore.

[hulugu]

You won't watch YouTube videos? Not even David after Dentist?

Not really. However, especially with issues of context I want to review the transcripts to see what people actually said and I find Beck's blubbering painful to watch....

She's no slouch... not by a long shot. Beck just happens to have the truth on his side, which makes arguments generally much easier to craft.

Nice framing, Huffington is a worthy enemy making Beck's victory all the more sweet.

Some opinion-themed entertainers are so intentionally offensive in their mission to inflame the most unsophisticated and credulous segment of their audience that they do not deserve the sort of attention that would wait for any "stopped clock" moments they may stumble into.

Being ignored if he ever finds a genuine point is an entirely justifiable consequence of his outrageous behavior the rest of the time. If Glenn Beck is ever right, then somebody smarter and more honest than he is will advance the same idea with infinitely more rationality and civility than Beck can muster.

If the man wants to be taken seriously at any point, he should go back to kindergarten and revisit "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." He's already in the intellectual neighborhood, so it shouldn't be out of his way.

Yes.

[Thomas Veil]

Moreover, what qualities do you ascribe to journalists? Just curious because to his credit in communications, Glenn Beck has been in radio since 1977; serving at 12 different stations blah blah blah...

Thus, let me ask again; what qualities do you ascribe to journalists? ...I am curious what your assessment of "journalist" is and what you're basing your condemnation on?I've been waiting for somebody to bring this up. Your host of "qualifications" for Glenn Beck are the same kinds of "qualifications" shared by drive-time morning shock jocks, tele-evangelists and Vince McMahon of the WWE...and none of those are journalists either.

I'm being totally serious here: please, please get yourself to any nearby accredited college and take a course in journalism. You will be amazed, floored and stunned by the difference between real journalism and the burlesque of same practiced by Beck & Co.

Before I respond to some of these posts, I think I should also point out how HILARIOUS it is that all of the liberals here refuse to even talk about the substance and actual topic of this thread.No, I'm kind of surprised that you would descend into IntheNet territory. I rarely if ever expect to agree with your posts, but I certainly don't expect to find you embarrassing yourself with this kind of stuff.

You're so caught up in what Arianna said that you aren't even talking about the original clip (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/beck-black-obama-fans-were-taught-be) that started all this. It's even on one of the pages you linked to.

(pauses for heavy sigh)

I don't know. You watch him more than I do. Is Beck always this crazy? Does he always sound like a third grader on 'roids having a tantrum? If you heard a retarded person ranting this stuff, you'd just shrug and say, "Well, he doesn't know any better." But this is a supposedly intelligent adult.

I don't know, I have to agree that people must watch him to see how much of an ass he's going to make of himself on any given day.

And the kicker of it is, he's going loco about how Arianna interpreted his remark, but he's going crazy about that guy's "workers of the world unite" comment as if it was serious "proof" that Obama is some kind of communist. Sweet Jesus, how can Glenn Beck criticize what other people say when stupidity flows from his mouth in a steady torrent?

In short: why are you wasting our time with this?

[leekohler]

I've been waiting for somebody to bring this up. Your host of "qualifications" for Glenn Beck are the same kinds of "qualifications" shared by drive-time morning shock jocks, tele-evangelists and Vince McMahon of the WWE...and none of those are journalists either.

I'm being totally serious here: please, please get yourself to any nearby accredited college and take a course in journalism. You will be amazed, floored and stunned by the difference between real journalism and the burlesque of same practiced by Beck & Co.


Don't you know that colleges are simply liberal brainwashing centers? :rolleyes::D

[IntheNet]

I'm being totally serious here: please, please get yourself to any nearby accredited college and take a course in journalism. You will be amazed, floored and stunned by the difference between real journalism and the burlesque of same practiced by Beck & Co.

So you're an authority on real journalism are you? Well I am genuinely curious; is this real journalism you're recommending The New York Times-type journalism that is now almost bankrupt (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/08/new-york-times-about-go-bankrupt) as a news organization; or the CBS Katie Couric-type journalism that has to take a huge salary cut to keep her staff (http://www.businessinsider.com/cbs-president-silences-rumors-of-courics-salary-cut-2010-2); or is that the biased Chris Matthews-type journalism that hears the president and responds with a "Thrill Going Up My Leg" (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/02/13/matthews-obama-speech-caused-thrill-going-my-leg)?

Reason I ask is this; the Glenn Beck-type journalism is number one in cable ratings and pays $23,000,000 in salary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck). Correspondingly, the Sarah Palin-type journalism (she received her bachelor's degree in communications with an emphasis in journalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin)) led to positions as a sportscaster, sports reporter, mayor, governor, vice presidential candidate, New York Times bestselling author, and cable news analyst. So let me know exactly what would be the real journalism you're advocating.

[killerrobot]

So you're an authority on real journalism are you? Well I am genuinely curious; is this real journalism ...

I think ten posts have already been made showing that large amounts of money do not buy truth, credibility nor love (I just had to throw that last one in).

[bobber205]

So you're an authority on real journalism are you? Well I am genuinely curious; is this real journalism you're recommending The New York Times-type journalism that is now almost bankrupt (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/08/new-york-times-about-go-bankrupt) as a news organization; or the CBS Katie Couric-type journalism that has to take a huge salary cut to keep her staff (http://www.businessinsider.com/cbs-president-silences-rumors-of-courics-salary-cut-2010-2); or is that the biased Chris Matthews-type journalism that hears the president and responds with a "Thrill Going Up My Leg" (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/02/13/matthews-obama-speech-caused-thrill-going-my-leg)?

Reason I ask is this; the Glenn Beck-type journalism is number one in cable ratings and pays $23,000,000 in salary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck). Correspondingly, the Sarah Palin-type journalism (she received her bachelor's degree in communications with an emphasis in journalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin)) led to positions as a sportscaster, sports reporter, mayor, governor, vice presidential candidate, New York Times bestselling author, and cable news analyst. So let me know exactly what would be the real journalism you're advocating.

Money != Journalism.

Success != Journalism.
:rolleyes:

I am becoming more convinced InTheNet is the parody of a far right thinking human being and can't possibly be serious.

Why are you scared of liberal policies or progressives in general? What have we done to harm you? Last time I checked we like to HELP people, not harm them...

[flopticalcube]

real journalism = high revenue :rolleyes:

Its **** like this that is slowly destroying the greatest nation on earth. So long...

[leekohler]

I think ten posts have already been made showing that large amounts of money do not buy truth, credibility nor love (I just had to throw that last one in).

They sure don't. But people like InTheNet want to hear things they agree with, not the truth. And sure, there are enough of those people to keep Faux News in business.

real journalism = high revenue :rolleyes:

Its **** like this that is slowly destroying the greatest nation on earth. So long...

No one ever lost a bet underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

[Lord Blackadder]

I have to agree that ratings and revenue is not a good judge of journalistic integrity....on the contrary, they seem inversely proportional.

I can understand that conservatives would find Beck entertaining because he mocks liberals and liberal politics; that precisely why I used to laugh at Kieth Olberman's show occasionally - he made fun of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and other right wing pundit-clowns, But I quickly came to realize Olberman was more or less a liberal version of Glenn Beck. I just had to step away from that garbage altogether.

[obeygiant]

Since when is Glenn Beck a journalist? He's a political pundit - a critic.

[Lord Blackadder]

The lines are blurred on the news networks these days...failed TV hosts and political candidates become "experts", the experts become pundits, and then finally are somehow kicked up onto journalistic pedestals.

It also helps that a number of these hacks come from blue-blood families with connections in business and media.

[hulugu]

...Correspondingly, the Sarah Palin-type journalism (she received her bachelor's degree in communications with an emphasis in journalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin)) led to positions as a sportscaster, sports reporter, mayor, governor, vice presidential candidate, New York Times bestselling author, and cable news analyst. So let me know exactly what would be the real journalism you're advocating.

So, the way forward for journalists is to become mayors of small-towns and then governors? I don't think can work more than 50 or so times.

[Counterfit]

It is of little matter though; Glenn's ratings are huge as are Fox's own network ratings... real Americans know who to trust for fair and balanced news:
Why do you keep insisting that Hulk Hogan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcmI2n60EIw) watches FNC? I'm sure he's smarter than that.
I'd rather watch my cat lick himself then watch, read, or listen to Beck.
I've always been fascinated by cats grooming. I rather watch that than do a lot of things...
Just as Chris Matthews accomplishes nothing by tearing into conservative politicians on Hardball. None of us change our opinions as a result

Mr. "I forgot he was black for an hour?" How does he still have a show? Does anyone even watch?

[gibbz]

But people like InTheNet want to hear things they agree with, not the truth.

Eloquently stated.

[Thomas Veil]

I am becoming more convinced InTheNet is the parody of a far right thinking human being and can't possibly be serious.You and me both. Either he's doing satire that is so straight-faced we haven't recognized it until now, or that was his absolute most ridiculous post yet.

But on the off chance that he's serious, I guess I should explain it to him. Let me quote what he said.

So you're an authority on real journalism are you? Uh...yeah. At least, more of one than you. Keep reading.

Well I am genuinely curious; is this real journalism you're recommending The New York Times-type journalism that is now almost bankrupt (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/08/new-york-times-about-go-bankrupt) as a news organization; or the CBS Katie Couric-type journalism that has to take a huge salary cut to keep her staff (http://www.businessinsider.com/cbs-president-silences-rumors-of-courics-salary-cut-2010-2); or is that the biased Chris Matthews-type journalism that hears the president and responds with a "Thrill Going Up My Leg" (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/02/13/matthews-obama-speech-caused-thrill-going-my-leg)? It's the real journalism that knows better than to use a biased source such as Newsbusters as objective proof of anything.

Reason I ask is this; the Glenn Beck-type journalism is number one in cable ratings and pays $23,000,000 in salary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck). Stop right there. Beck is not a journalist, except perhaps in the Hecht & Macarthur sense. (Speaking of which, I recommend you see the Jack Lemmon-Walter Matthau version of "The Front Page" sometime, and compare it against the kind of yellow "journalism" Beck practices.)

At any rate, Beck is no journalist. He's a video blogger, that's all. He couldn't dig up a real fact on his own to save his life. If his crazy act didn't make money for him, he'd be sitting in his mother's basement creating YouTube videos with his webcam.

Correspondingly, the Sarah Palin-type journalism (she received her bachelor's degree in communications with an emphasis in journalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin)) led to positions as a sportscaster, sports reporter, mayor, governor, vice presidential candidate, New York Times bestselling author, and cable news analyst. So let me know exactly what would be the real journalism you're advocating.I've already told you...get thee to a journalism class. A real one, by a real university, not Bob Jones or some mail-order place.

I did. Like your hero Sarah Palin, I got my degree in communications...and that included journalism courses. What's better...unlike your hero, I still work in the field.

That's how I can tell you that she never learned a thing, in spite of her major. And that you know nothing about the field.

[Iscariot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmWb0HPTB9A

[IntheNet]

Stop right there. Beck is not a journalist... Beck is no journalist...

Point One
Scanning over this thread I see that castigation sentiment arising frequently... questioning Beck's journalism pedigree (even though I've clearly showed Beck's academic and career credential in radio and television)... yet not so much questioning of Arianna Huffington's journalism pedigree (she has an economcs degree with little print, radio, and television credential)... yet Beck's the one that receives the bulls-eye target of your scorn for "Beck is no journalist" castigation? I suggest you scan over your posts and ask yourself why your bias in condemning Beck and giving Huffington a complete pass is driven by your politics or your hypocrisy or both?

Point Two
I believe the central original point of this thread was Beck's condemnation of Huffington for Arianna's misunderstanding of Glenn's economics rhetoric. That's probably the point we should return to, since analyzing the caliber of journalists today is a zero-sum game, unless you wish to hold up the rapidly sinking Gray Lady (New York Times) as your journalism gold standard! In return, I'll hold up Murdock's media empire as the most profitable and highest watched media entity as mine and we'll see who's still around and on top in two years!

I've already told you...get thee to a journalism class. A real one, by a real university, not Bob Jones or some mail-order place

Always the critic... I suppose you feel Bob Jones is not a "real" university either...

[Peterkro]

Point One
Scanning over this thread I see that castigation sentiment arising frequently... questioning Beck's journalism pedigree (even though I've clearly showed Beck's academic and career credential in radio and television)... yet not so much questioning of Arianna Huffington's journalism pedigree (she has an economcs degree with little print, radio, and television credential)... yet Beck's the one that receives the bulls-eye target of your scorn for "Beck is no journalist" castigation? I suggest you scan over your posts and ask yourself why your bias in condemning Beck and giving Huffington a complete pass is driven by your politics or your hypocrisy or both?

Point Two
I believe the central original point of this thread was Beck's condemnation of Huffington for Arianna's misunderstanding of Glenn's economics rhetoric. That's probably the point we should return to, since analyzing the caliber of journalists today is a zero-sum game, unless you wish to hold up the rapidly sinking Gray Lady (New York Times) as your journalism gold standard! In return, I'll hold up Murdock's media empire as the most profitable and highest watched media entity as mine and we'll see who's still around and on top in two years!



Always the critic... I suppose you feel Bob Jones is not a "real" university either...

I couldn't care less about this parochial spat but you appear to be saying as fact something that is clearly being disputed,for instance:


Huffington took up Beck's challenge in a blistering reply on the Huffington Post. First, she used clips and transcripts from Beck's own show to prove her earlier point. "Not Stalin. Not Hitler. Not Mao," she snaps. "Not 'the truth' being slaughtered. YOU. 'They are taking YOU to a place to be slaughtered.'" After eviscerating Beck, she caps off with a scathing indictment of his modus operandi.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/Huffington-Beck-in-Clash-of-the-Partisan-Titans-695

Now given that all involved are talking complete drivel it's neither here nor there but in your sub comic book title you are clearly supporting one view of what happened without even acknowledging another view exists.

[leekohler]

Eloquently stated.

And also ignored, like every other truth they don't like.

[IntheNet]

...she caps off with a scathing indictment of his modus operandi..

Pay close attention here...

Glenn Beck Breaks it down for Arianna Huffington
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfyeo63Q0HE

[Peterkro]

Pay close attention here...

Glenn Beck Breaks it down for Arianna Huffington
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfyeo63Q0HE

Is there something in "I couldn't care less" that you don't understand.

[leekohler]

Is there something in "I couldn't care less" that you don't understand.

Apparently not. This has gone on for 4 pages already.

[.Andy]

Is there something in "I couldn't care less" that you don't understand.
Despite it being pointed out numerous times it seems pretty clear that certain posters can't understand that most people haven't got as much invested in pundit entertainers as they do. For them people like beck are their voice and are on their team. An attack on beck is an attack on them and their ideology. Monetary and ratings success of such pundits (at their expense) is a sign of the success of their ideology. They cannot break that paradigm and continue to try and project it onto others.

We've got four pages of posters showing absolutely no support or interest in this Arianna individual but still they think they are scoring cheap points. No matter how many times the situation is explained by any number of posters. The blinders are on.

[leekohler]

Despite it being pointed out numerous times it seems pretty clear that certain posters can't understand that most people haven't got as much invested in pundit entertainers as they do. For them people like beck are their voice and are on their team. An attack on beck is an attack on them and their ideology. Monetary and ratings success of such pundits (at their expense) is a sign of the success of their ideology. They cannot break that paradigm and continue to try and project it onto others.

We've got four pages of posters showing absolutely no support or interest in this Arianna individual but still they think they are scoring cheap points. No matter how many times the situation is explained by any number of posters. The blinders are on.

Exactly- I couldn't care less about pundits. Their opinions mean absolutely nothing. They're nothing but a bunch of clowns simply trying to make a buck. Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.

[mcrain]

Point One
Scanning over this thread I see that castigation sentiment arising frequently... questioning Beck's journalism pedigree (even though I've clearly showed Beck's academic and career credential in radio and television)... yet not so much questioning of Arianna Huffington's journalism pedigree (she has an economcs degree with little print, radio, and television credential)... yet Beck's the one that receives the bulls-eye target of your scorn for "Beck is no journalist" castigation? I suggest you scan over your posts and ask yourself why your bias in condemning Beck and giving Huffington a complete pass is driven by your politics or your hypocrisy or both?

Point Two
I believe the central original point of this thread was Beck's condemnation of Huffington for Arianna's misunderstanding of Glenn's economics rhetoric.

Always the critic... I suppose you feel Bob Jones is not a "real" university either...

1. Glenn Beck has said on numerous occassions that he is not a journalist.

From glennbeck.com... GLENN: Now remember, I'm not a journalist. They always make fun of me: Glenn Beck, he's a pseudojournalist. No, I'm not a journalist. I never claimed to be a journalist. I am an opinion person. Listen to what she did. She moved now clearly not just in the way she was handling everything but by what she just did, from journalist to opinion maker. What she did is she said, "What does this have to do with taxes?" Question, period. What does this have to do with taxes. Well, let me explain: Abraham Lincoln said you can't tear down the house of one person to build another, okay? That's what it has to do with taxes. But she wasn't interested in the actual answer. She wanted to make her point. That's what an opinion maker does, not a journalist. Listen to what she says on her point: What does this have to do with taxes?

People here aren't giving Huff a pass. What is happening is that that are people here talking about how Glenn is a journalist, and people keep saying that he is not. Some of those same people also say that Huff is not. No one is defending Huff, but you keep acting like they are.

2. The original point that Huff made was that Glenn Beck was using inflammatory language and inciting people, and one example of which was the use of the phrase about slaughtering people. The point was the inflammatory language, NOT that she misunderstood his point that he was trying to get across.

She didn't misunderstand his analogy, she didn't like his choice of words because it is inciteful and inflammatory.

3. Any school or university that refuses to teach science, or teaches their students to distrust science, in my opinion isn't a school, should not be accredited, and should lose its tax exempt status.

[Lord Blackadder]

I don't care about Beck or Huffington or anyone else of that ilk, but I do care about the fact that they have so many followers. Why do people listen to them?

Because it's comforting to hear what you want to hear.

I never claimed to be a journalist. I am an opinion person. Aren't we all, Glenn?

[leekohler]

Any school or university that refuses to teach science, or teaches their students to distrust science, in my opinion isn't a school, should not be accredited, and should lose its tax exempt status.

Agreed. Bob Jones is not a real school. It's an indoctrination factory. But if people want to be taught their BS, it's their dollar.

I don't care about Beck or Huffington or anyone else of that ilk, but I do care about the fact that they have so many followers. Why do people listen to them?

Because it's comforting to hear what you want to hear.


Yep. Like i said before, people like InTheNet want to hear what they want to hear, not the truth.

[Lord Blackadder]

Agreed. Bob Jones is not a real school. It's an indoctrination factory. But if people want to be taught their BS, it's their dollar.

Yes, a university that bravely decided to allow blacks to enroll....decades after everyone else did. :mad:

[Sydde]

That's probably the point we should return to, since analyzing the caliber of journalists today is a zero-sum game, unless you wish to hold up the rapidly sinking Gray Lady (New York Times) as your journalism gold standard! In return, I'll hold up Murdock's media empire as the most profitable and highest watched media entity as mine and we'll see who's still around and on top in two years!

Speaking of the Gray Lady, she occasionally or regularly posts this list that shows how well certain popular books are selling. The list, IIRC, is divided into two parts: fiction and non-fiction. Can you tell me which part typically has higher sales figures?

[leekohler]

Speaking of the Gray Lady, she occasionally or regularly posts this list that shows how well certain popular books are selling. The list, IIRC, is divided into two parts: fiction and non-fiction. Can you tell me which part typically has higher sales figures?

I missed that classic InTheNet post. So we now judge journalism and truth by popularity? Unbelievable. Thank god most people in this country aren't like ITN, we'd be doomed.

[Lord Blackadder]

...most profitable and highest watched...

What other qualities do you think necessarily go along with these? Most truthful? Most objective? Most mindful of the interest of the public at large? I must admit I see no evidence that profitability and popularity are signs of inherent usefulness or relevance. The American public spends massive sums of money on and devotes great attention to lots of pointless or frivolous things.

[IntheNet]

What other qualities do you think necessarily go along with these? Most truthful? Most objective? Most mindful of the interest of the public at large? Surely you jest! You'd be spinning the wool fairly thick if you believed, even for a remote second, that journalism in any capacity exists to be the "most truthful", "most objective", or "mindful of the interests of the public." Profit has been the sole and primary motivator of media, whether it me print media, video media, or audio media. Journalism is a business! Even the struggling web media in its many forms (case-in-point: Pajamas Media web bloggers and other like web media) thrives only when it can do so at a profit. Profit them becomes the slave journalism is tied to; it always has been do. Only a media that is subsidized with public funds can operate without the primary master of profit. And even then such media will inevitably have a liberal bias; case in point National Public Radio (NPR) here in this nation. While media can strive to be truthful, objective, and function in the interest of the public, it is fooling itself if, even for a moment, it divorces profit from consideration. Why? Simply stated; journalism is a corporate endeavor to make money.

I must admit I see no evidence that profitability and popularity are signs of inherent usefulness or relevance. Yet you rally to Manchester United colors on the pitch and cheer the profitable and popular team! What an interesting surprise! Yeah I know you were thinking about journalism but just saying....

The American public spends massive sums of money on and devotes great attention to lots of pointless or frivolous things. Yeah we do. We do things different on this side of the pond. And in terms of news the American public wisely chooses a fair and balanced cable news outfit that is clearly apart from the mainstream liberal media.

[bobber205]

Surely you jest! You'd be spinning the wool fairly thick if you believed, even for a remote second, that journalism in any capacity exists to be the "most truthful", "most objective", or "mindful of the interests of the public." Profit has been the sole and primary motivator of media, whether it me print media, video media, or audio media. Journalism is a business! Even the struggling web media in its many forms (case-in-point: Pajamas Media web bloggers and other like web media) thrives only when it can do so at a profit. Profit them becomes the slave journalism is tied to; it always has been do. Only a media that is subsidized with public funds can operate without the primary master of profit. And even then such media will inevitably have a liberal bias; case in point National Public Radio (NPR) here in this nation. While media can strive to be truthful, objective, and function in the interest of the public, it is fooling itself if, even for a moment, it divorces profit from consideration. Why? Simply stated; journalism is a corporate endeavor to make money.

Yet you rally to Manchester United colors on the pitch and cheer the profitable and popular team! What an interesting surprise! Yeah I know you were thinking about journalism but just saying....

Yeah we do. We do things different on this side of the pond. And in terms of news the American public wisely chooses a fair and balanced cable news outfit that is clearly apart from the mainstream liberal media.
This is an outright lie.

[skunk]

Surely you jest! You'd be spinning the wool fairly thick if you believed, even for a remote second, that journalism in any capacity exists to be the "most truthful", "most objective", or "mindful of the interests of the public." Profit has been the sole and primary motivator of media, whether it me print media, video media, or audio media. It is always just possible for journalism to be both profitable and truthful.In terms of news the American public wisely chooses a fair and balanced cable news outfit that is clearly apart from the mainstream liberal media.I do love satire.

[leekohler]

This is an outright lie.

That was quite possibly the most intellectually dishonest post I've ever read. ITN delivers yet more ridiculousness.

[Rt&Dzine]

And in terms of news the American public wisely chooses a fair and balanced cable news outfit that is clearly apart from the mainstream liberal media.

If you're referring to the Fox News Network . . . your comment totally ridiculous!!!

[hulugu]

... Only a media that is subsidized with public funds can operate without the primary master of profit. And even then such media will inevitably have a liberal bias; case in point National Public Radio (NPR) here in this nation....

Why is this so, do you think?

Yeah we do. We do things different on this side of the pond. And in terms of news the American public wisely chooses a fair and balanced cable news outfit that is clearly apart from the mainstream liberal media.

Can you define for me the mainstream liberal media? Since you're using the phrase "mainstream," it might easier to define for me what outlets are not "mainstream liberal media," but either way is your choice.

For instance, where does Vanity Fair, National Geographic, Esquire, Slate.com, etc. fall on your graph?

[xUKHCx]

Yet you rally to Manchester United colors on the pitch and cheer the profitable and popular team! What an interesting surprise! Yeah I know you were thinking about journalism but just saying....

Point 1: Amoung other teams Lord Blackadder is a Liverpool fan. Also recent news will show you that Manchester United aren't as profitable as you may think.

Yeah we do. We do things different on this side of the pond. And in terms of news the American public wisely chooses a fair and balanced cable news outfit that is clearly apart from the mainstream liberal media.

Point 2: Lord Blackadder is a real American.

[IntheNet]

This is an outright lie.

No lie; matter of fact the proof here is quite widespread. I steer you to a recent Business Insider article earlier last month, "How Fox Conquered Cable News (http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-fox-cnn-msnbc-ratings-2010-1?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=SAI%20Chart%20Of%20The%20Day,%20Monday%201/11/10)," and I'll let you review the ratings, viewership rankings, and detail, all backed up with Nielsen Media references. This chart was relevant so I'll post it for your reference.

http://i50.tinypic.com/96m6wy.gif

Insofar as the fair & balanced allegation, I steer you to almost every interview and political pundit interview and discussion wherein Fox News strives to include balanced discussion with conservative, independent, and liberal interviewees and panelists to give each discussion its proper balance. That's a Fox hallmark.

Point 1: Amoung other teams Lord Blackadder is a Liverpool fan.

Guess I owe him an apology then for the Man U insinuation...I was in the midst of making a point... Sorry my Lord... my bad.

[Rt&Dzine]

Insofar as the fair & balanced allegation, I steer you to almost every interview and political pundit interview and discussion wherein Fox News strives to include balanced discussion with conservative, independent, and liberal interviewees and panelists to give each discussion its proper balance. That's a Fox hallmark.

More ridiculousness.

[.Andy]

Yet you rally to Manchester United colors on the pitch and cheer the profitable and popular team! What an interesting surprise! Yeah I know you were thinking about journalism but just saying.....
It comes as no surprise that you see parallels with football and your cheerleading flavour of politics.

[Gelfin]

I am an opinion person.

1. Glenn Beck is an opinion person.
2. Opinions are like a******s.
QED: Glenn Beck is like an a****** person.

[Sydde]

Yeah we do. We do things different on this side of the pond.

And on which side of the pond do you think LordBlackadder lives?

[Eraserhead]

Surely you jest! You'd be spinning the wool fairly thick if you believed, even for a remote second, that journalism in any capacity exists to be the "most truthful", "most objective", or "mindful of the interests of the public." Profit has been the sole and primary motivator of media, whether it me print media, video media, or audio media. Journalism is a business! Even the struggling web media in its many forms (case-in-point: Pajamas Media web bloggers and other like web media) thrives only when it can do so at a profit. Profit them becomes the slave journalism is tied to; it always has been do.

So are you saying that the Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/) is better than the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)?

Yet you rally to Manchester United colors on the pitch and cheer the profitable and popular team! What an interesting surprise! Yeah I know you were thinking about journalism but just saying....

glory supporter 8 thumbs up
buy glory supporter mugs, tshirts and magnets
A person who supports which ever sports team (football, basketball etc...) is doing the best. He/she will say that they have supported that team for 'ages' or that they have 'family ties' to the team or that 'they like the way the team plays.'
A london based man utd fan can be described as a glory supporter.

People who do that are lame.

[rdowns]

What other qualities do you think necessarily go along with these?


Most angry white men.

[Eraserhead]

The thing is sometimes responding to trolls is good, I found out some interesting stuff about Cap and Trade (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9192442&postcount=109) recently.

And finding out about Christian terrorism in India (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9213420&postcount=337) was also quite interesting too.

[Lord Blackadder]

Ha! looks like my response was unnecessary. Thanks all. ;)

Suffice to say, I pay Uncle Sam his taxes, have a Social Security card and US birth certificate (no, I'm not going to show you, sorry), vote, and nobody would mistake the accent. :)

And Liverpool is my club in England.

We can continue to debate this ad nauseum, but I see that we are at a total impasse on one point, and this really closes the potential for discussion: You, IntheNet, assert that all other media is liberally biased and that Fox News is fair and balanced. Yet I can assure you that Rupert Murdoch himself does not hold that opinion. In fact, he knows only too well that in order for his network to succeed it must be biased.

You are arguing that business success is some large measure of a network's quality, so perhaps I can argue it this way: News Corp and Fox News are successful because they harness bias as a crucial selling point in their business model. They market themselves as an alternative to all other news media, which they claim to be liberally biased. It's a clear that their stance is certainly contrary to most other media outlets.

However, if that is true, doesn't that suggest that they are merely biased in an opposite direction?

I'm not going to argue that MSNBC and CNN aren't biased - they are, but I think you are going to find it impossible to prove that Fox News is unbiased. What you and I and the rest of us are best served by is an acceptance that every single news network is biased in some direction. There is NO "fair and balanced" news source on Earth, and there never will be.

[bobber205]

Ha! looks like my response was unnecessary. Thanks all. ;)

Suffice to say, I pay Uncle Sam his taxes, have a Social Security card and US birth certificate (no, I'm not going to show you, sorry), vote, and nobody would mistake the accent. :)

And Liverpool is my club in England.

We can continue to debate this ad nauseum, but I see that we are at a total impasse on one point, and this really closes the potential for discussion: You, IntheNet, assert that all other media is liberally biased and that Fox News is fair and balanced. Yet I can assure you that Rupert Murdoch himself does not hold that opinion. In fact, he knows only too well that in order for his network to succeed it must be biased.

You are arguing that business success is some large measure of a network's quality, so perhaps I can argue it this way: News Corp and Fox News are successful because they harness bias as a crucial selling point in their business model. They market themselves as an alternative to all other news media, which they claim to be liberally biased. It's a clear that their stance is certainly contrary to most other media outlets.

However, if that is true, doesn't that suggest that they are merely biased in an opposite direction?

I'm not going to argue that MSNBC and CNN aren't biased - they are, but I think you are going to find it impossible to prove that Fox News is unbiased. What you and I and the rest of us are best served by is an acceptance that every single news network is biased in some direction. There is NO "fair and balanced" news source on Earth, and there never will be.

Which makes Fox's claim about being Fair and Balanced all the more insulting. It's clear they are pandering to the lowest intellects among us.

[mcrain]

Profit has been the sole and primary motivator of media, whether it me print media, video media, or audio media. Journalism is a business! ... Why? Simply stated; journalism is a corporate endeavor to make money.

And in terms of news the American public wisely chooses a fair and balanced cable news outfit that is clearly apart from the mainstream liberal media.

Wait a second. Journalism is a corporate endeavor to make money? Wouldn't that mean that ALL journalism is conservative biased, and FoxNews is just REALLY conservatively biased?

You love to point out how "popular" FoxNews is... but hey, Fox had the highest unfavorable rating of all national outlets studied at 25 percent of all viewers. (missing cite).

You, IntheNet, assert that all other media is liberally biased and that Fox News is fair and balanced. Yet I can assure you that Rupert Murdoch himself does not hold that opinion. In fact, he knows only too well that in order for his network to succeed it must be biased.

You are arguing that business success is some large measure of a network's quality, so perhaps I can argue it this way: News Corp and Fox News are successful because they harness bias as a crucial selling point in their business model. They market themselves as an alternative to all other news media, which they claim to be liberally biased. It's a clear that their stance is certainly contrary to most other media outlets.

However, if that is true, doesn't that suggest that they are merely biased in an opposite direction?

I'm not going to argue that MSNBC and CNN aren't biased - they are, but I think you are going to find it impossible to prove that Fox News is unbiased. What you and I and the rest of us are best served by is an acceptance that every single news network is biased in some direction. There is NO "fair and balanced" news source on Earth, and there never will be.

Don't forget that FoxNews lies! Covered before here... http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-674024.html

Which makes Fox's claim about being Fair and Balanced all the more insulting. It's clear they are pandering to the lowest intellects among us.

For a pretty good analysis of who the so-called liberals are that Fox uses to be so balanced take a look at this article.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

[Thomas Veil]

Point One
Scanning over this thread I see that castigation sentiment arising frequently... questioning Beck's journalism pedigree (even though I've clearly showed Beck's academic and career credential in radio and television)... yet not so much questioning of Arianna Huffington's journalism pedigree (she has an economcs degree with little print, radio, and television credential)... yet Beck's the one that receives the bulls-eye target of your scorn for "Beck is no journalist" castigation? I suggest you scan over your posts and ask yourself why your bias in condemning Beck and giving Huffington a complete pass is driven by your politics or your hypocrisy or both?Don't try to reverse this. I only addressed Huffington indirectly, and I never defended her, both of those in service of the point that you jumped all over Huffington while completely ignoring Beck's grotesquerie. The fact that you are taking this tack shows that you are letting your political bias overrun your common sense.

Point Two
I believe the central original point of this thread was Beck's condemnation of Huffington for Arianna's misunderstanding of Glenn's economics rhetoric. That's probably the point we should return to, since analyzing the caliber of journalists today is a zero-sum game, unless you wish to hold up the rapidly sinking Gray Lady (New York Times) as your journalism gold standard! In return, I'll hold up Murdock's media empire as the most profitable and highest watched media entity as mine and we'll see who's still around and on top in two years!Context is important too, and the context is that you can easily pick up anything to criticize from liberals while ignoring a mountain of craziness from your own side of the aisle.

Surely you jest! You'd be spinning the wool fairly thick if you believed, even for a remote second, that journalism in any capacity exists to be the "most truthful", "most objective", or "mindful of the interests of the public." Profit has been the sole and primary motivator of media, whether it me print media, video media, or audio media. Journalism is a business! Even the struggling web media in its many forms (case-in-point: Pajamas Media web bloggers and other like web media) thrives only when it can do so at a profit. Profit them becomes the slave journalism is tied to; it always has been do. Only a media that is subsidized with public funds can operate without the primary master of profit. And even then such media will inevitably have a liberal bias; case in point National Public Radio (NPR) here in this nation. While media can strive to be truthful, objective, and function in the interest of the public, it is fooling itself if, even for a moment, it divorces profit from consideration. Why? Simply stated; journalism is a corporate endeavor to make money....

Yeah we do. We do things different on this side of the pond. And in terms of news the American public wisely chooses a fair and balanced cable news outfit that is clearly apart from the mainstream liberal media.Lord Blackadder is absolutely right -- which is why I recommended the journalism class. Getting the facts straight is Journalism 101. It is the journalists' version of the doctors' "First do no harm" credo.

Back when I was taking journalism classes, there was a much bigger separation of newspapers from radio and TV, and TV from entertainment. The purpose, of course, was to ensure that one company could not dominate the media and express a single, biased viewpoint...like, oh, Clear Channel, for example.

Disbelieve this all you want, but news and entertainment divisions were separate parts of TV networks, and their paths rarely if ever crossed. In fact, network execs resented news divisions because they lost money, and that loss had to be covered by the entertainment division.

But...the news programs were usually honest.

Of course, the deadly combination of deregulation and money spoil everything, and sure enough, as soon as the networks started mixing entertainment with news, the news went to hell in a handcart. With Reagan's FCC cheering it on.

So now CNN hires crapola "talent" like Nancy Grace and repeats stories drummed up by the right wing echo chamber, even when they know they're probably not true. And Fox often taints its news and in the evening throws away the rules altogether and engages in hours and hours of blatant dishonesty.

That's why it'll never matter how high Fox's ratings are. All the money and ratings in the world can't buy them credibility; only their deeds can. And their deeds show that they too often play loose and fast with the news. They are what professional wrestling is to real wrestling. The former obviously makes a ton more money, but at least they acknowledge that they're fake. (And you know if the WWE ever switched to real wrestling, their ratings would take a dive and the money gravy train would stop.)

The fact that you have to rely on dragging the ratings into this over and over and over and over is, in point of fact, a tacit admission that you realize Fox has nothing else to hang its hat on....certainly not journalistic integrity.

[Lord Blackadder]

Back when I was taking journalism classes, there was a much bigger separation of newspapers from radio and TV, and TV from entertainment. The purpose, of course, was to ensure that one company could not dominate the media and express a single, biased viewpoint...like, oh, Clear Channel, for example.

Disbelieve this all you want, but news and entertainment divisions were separate parts of TV networks, and their paths rarely if ever crossed. In fact, network execs resented news divisions because they lost money, and that loss had to be covered by the entertainment division.

But...the news programs were usually honest.

I've head chats with people of a certain age about the changing face of TV news in America over time and it is quite eye-opening. Years ago the prime time news was something that attempted above all to be factual and informative. Editorial, opinion and emotion were banished from the newsroom, with the exception of the interview. Sure, bias was present then as it was now, but it was never played up the way it is now.

Look at a Walter Cronkite clip from decades ago and compare it with the farcical dog and pony show we call the "news" today. I'm not going to claim that news in the 60s was perfect or that we should even look to it as a model necessarily, but news shows of the past have an informative starkness about them that I find very refreshing.

These days "news" broadcasts look more like a Super Bowl halftime show (though without any wardrobe malfunctions to liven things up further).

[Sydde]

Wait a second. Journalism is a corporate endeavor to make money? Wouldn't that mean that ALL journalism is conservative biased, and FoxNews is just REALLY conservatively biased?

As a discipline, journalism is as biased as the reporters, editors and producers. Newspapers and electronic media outlets are business enterprises (which is not exactly the same thing as "corporate" but these days might as well be) whose major source of income is advertising. The staff who collect, compile and present the content are typically college-educated and tend to have a "liberal arts" sheepskin. Oh, there's that naughty word.

So, the "liberal bias" derives from the news staff. This slant is offset by the business end of the operation. Management will strive to make sure that the advertisers are comfortable buying space/time to support the news operation. Hence, the editorial staff, who are aware of the fine line that must be walked, are very careful not to step on the wrong toes.

The key dynamic is getting eyes/ears. If your audience is small, your advertising revenue will be as well (print media will have independent circulation audits, just like broadcast media has ratings). In the past, it was sufficient to have interesting stories, but newsrooms learned that more shocking and outrageous material drew in more people, which is good for revenue.

Clearly, Murdoch is very interested in revenue, as evidenced by his confrontation with Google. Look at the Newscorp holdings and you will see that every one is keenly focused and finely tuned toward making money. Fox News formed not to serve a specific need but to tap a market that Murdoch felt had largely been ignored by the rest of the news business.

[Thomas Veil]

I've head chats with people of a certain age about the changing face of TV news in America over time and it is quite eye-opening. Years ago the prime time news was something that attempted above all to be factual and informative. Editorial, opinion and emotion were banished from the newsroom, with the exception of the interview. Sure, bias was present then as it was now, but it was never played up the way it is now.

Look at a Walter Cronkite clip from decades ago and compare it with the farcical dog and pony show we call the "news" today. I'm not going to claim that news in the 60s was perfect or that we should even look to it as a model necessarily, but news shows of the past have an informative starkness about them that I find very refreshing.It's okay, you can say "older guys like Tom". :D

Yeah, the 1960s was the first decade where I was old enough to watch and understand the news. I recall not only Cronkite -- who earned the title "The Most Trusted Man in America" -- but Huntley-Brinkley, Harry Reasoner and that gang. It wasn't perfect, but it was pretty straightforward stuff.

And you know what? There were wackos complaining that those guys were too liberal. Footage of flag-draped coffins coming home from Vietnam sooner or later caused the majority of people to turn against the war, and guys like Nixon and Spiro Agnew (remember him? Big media hater!) decided that that meant the press was biased. :rolleyes:

To conservatives, the press is always biased. See, journalists gather facts and try to place them into a context so that readers can understand them. "Context" doesn't mean giving facts a liberal or conservative slant, it means, for example, giving people enough data to understand a story. If the unemployment rate went down 1%, then they have to tell you what the previous rate was, so you can determine whether or not this is a slight improvement or a significant one. A drop from 5% to 4% is pretty good; a drop from 10% to 9%, still an improvement, but not nearly as good.

Conservatives, however, do it the opposite way. They start with a pre-drawn conclusion -- not one you've drawn, but one they've drawn -- and they work backwards to make the facts fit their theory. And more and more, they're either distorting the facts ("death panels", Van Jones, etc.) or making crap up completely (birthers).

Yeah, I know a few liberal commentators tread this line too, but not nearly as frequently and blatantly. At least as often, they pinpoint and reveal this practice in their conservative "brethren".

That's not even getting into the right wing echo chamber, where hate radio twists or invents something, it gets repeated on other hate radio shows, makes its way to conservative blogs and Fox, rattles around for days until it's in the public eye so much that idiot editors at CNN figure that they have to cover it too...even though there may be little or no truth to it at all.

Yeah, that's some liberal bias. Entering conservative ************ into the mainstream media. :rolleyes:

[Lord Blackadder]

It's okay, you can say "older guys like Tom". :D

Yeah, the 1960s was the first decade where I was old enough to watch and understand the news. I recall not only Cronkite -- who earned the title "The Most Trusted Man in America" -- but Huntley-Brinkley, Harry Reasoner and that gang. It wasn't perfect, but it was pretty straightforward stuff.

Older? how about "more experienced?" :D I have considerably less, as the first living memory I have of news was watching the Challenger blow up live on TV and being too young the process what I had actually seen. So I'm quite a bit behind you! :o The first time I watched the news and really more or less understood what was happening was probably Desert Storm.

My grandmother specifically cites Huntley-Brinkley as her journalistic ideal.

I have to admit that the birther movement and it's presence on prime-time news (and in the halls of congress) has really shocked me. I can understand people hating Obama's politics and even having a strong personal dislike for him...but the birther movement is based in outright LIES. It's shocking. Absolutely shocking.

[thepawn]

This chart was relevant so I'll post it for your reference.

http://i50.tinypic.com/96m6wy.gif


You do know that the three on the bottom mainly serve the same audience, where as the one on the top is the only one that caters to that audience, so its about a zero sum game?

If you broke it into lib/cons it'd be almost a 50/50 audience split...if there were other conservative-leaning news networks, I'm sure Fox's audience would decline. Where as the other three stations all fight for the same viewer pool.

[skunk]

^^^ Well spotted. :)

[leekohler]

You do know that the three on the bottom mainly serve the same audience, where as the one on the top is the only one that caters to that audience, so its about a zero sum game?

If you broke it into lib/cons it'd be almost a 50/50 audience split...if there were other conservative-leaning news networks, I'm sure Fox's audience would decline. Where as the other three stations all fight for the same viewer pool.

He won't understand that.

[Zombie Acorn]

You do know that the three on the bottom mainly serve the same audience, where as the one on the top is the only one that caters to that audience, so its about a zero sum game?

If you broke it into lib/cons it'd be almost a 50/50 audience split...if there were other conservative-leaning news networks, I'm sure Fox's audience would decline. Where as the other three stations all fight for the same viewer pool.

Good luck finding another crazy ******* like Beck, hes one of a kind.

[Lord Blackadder]

If you broke it into lib/cons it'd be almost a 50/50 audience split...if there were other conservative-leaning news networks, I'm sure Fox's audience would decline. Where as the other three stations all fight for the same viewer pool.

Excellent point. And yet another reason why Rupert Murdoch & Co are very, very aware of their bias. Because bias makes good business in this industry. :(

[hulugu]

...You, IntheNet, assert that all other media is liberally biased and that Fox News is fair and balanced....

What I find interesting, and thepawn's post alludes to this, is how InTheNet (or other Fox News apparatchiks) both refers to Fox News' ratings as a sign of popularity, but then refers to it as separate from the mainstream media.
If it's separate from the mainstream, that means it's inherently fringe, borderline, radical. Or more positively, alternative, avant-garde, offbeat.

If this is true, and Fox News' is an alternative then it's the minority, which then means that the other news organizations, the so-called liberal mainstream media is more popular.