Glenn Beck

[mcm1610]

Every so often I turn him on just to see what he's ranting about.

Say what you want about his views, that's not what this is about.

He has the most bizarre way of getting people on board and get them riled up.

He's ranting about handouts and how those who supported health care just want "my free stuff, and HIS free stuff too!" and have never read history before. Those who opposed it have the attitude and outlook that won World War II! And this debate is like the Revolutionary War somehow! Those who supported health care can't even name any of the Founding Fathers.

It's just a bunch of "rahrah! GO AMERICA! You're un-American if you disagree!" hooplah. I really get disappointed that so many people take him seriously. It's the same fearmongering that goes into so much of the ACTUAL political debate around health care. It's far more easy to throw out misinformation than it is to debunk it, so they just spew whatever they can think of to make it sound bad, and hope no one looks for any facts (because most of America won't).

It's ridiculous, and I can't help but feel the advent of 24-hour news channels has helped polarize American politics.

[adamlikesmusic]

I could sometimes watch him when he was on HLN, as he wasn't completely insane at the time, but since going to Fox, it seems anything goes on his show.

[axlrose]

I just can't stand this sort of punditry. I don't event like Keith Olberman when he does it. I listen to NPR (snob alert) and one of the things I love is the even handed nature in which things are discussed. I certainly have my views but I have no urge to listen to some self righteous airbag shout someone down or use fear mongering to get their point across. The issues being discussed are too serious and require too much maturity for them to be discussed as such.

[brotherkyle]

how did glenn beck not get his ass kicked as a kid?

[mcm1610]

He was actually talking about his childhood today. He was ripping kids apart for that "cup stacking" nonsense, and then talked about how "when I was a kid, we played REAL games, like kickball, and dodgeball. Now, sometimes it ended with a kid like me taking one of those big, red balls right in the face, but I bounced back up. Our games taught us that there were consequences of failure.."

Then I went to get Chinese food.

[jimmythescumbag]

how did glenn beck not get his ass kicked as a kid?

Because he wasn't being paid to act like a doucher on TV...yet...

[kurtz]

I get most of my news from NPR too. I can't stand the pundits on the cable news channels and their actual "news" coverage is not much better. The only time I watch the cable news channels is when something momentous is happening, like the vote last night.

I find it difficult to even have civil discussions on political topics with people who get their news from sources like Fox, MSNBC, Townhall.com, Huffington Post, etc... Many times they are uninformed or misinformed about the other side of the topic simply because their "news" source does not give it any fair coverage.

[bruins4ever]

I have less respect for Glenn Beck and good ol' Rush than just about anybody on the planet... and I'm Canadian and therefore am rarely subjected to the worst of his rants. That Ann Coulter bitch is unbearable as well.

[themean]

I guess it is fun to watch someone fake meltdowns every once in awhile, but I couldn't imagine watching this on a regular basis. I'm pretty levelheaded and well-educated, though, so I'm not the target audience.

[steventangent]

I just can't stand this sort of punditry. I don't event like Keith Olberman when he does it. I listen to NPR (snob alert) and one of the things I love is the even handed nature in which things are discussed. I certainly have my views but I have no urge to listen to some self righteous airbag shout someone down or use fear mongering to get their point across. The issues being discussed are too serious and require too much maturity for them to be discussed as such.

Pretty much this.

And I still don't understand how middle class people, who have to work to support their famblies, listen to the millionaire head of a multimedia empire and think, "this guy really knows what's in my best interest."

[lokithelion]

I get most of my news from NPR too. I can't stand the pundits on the cable news channels and their actual "news" coverage is not much better. The only time I watch the cable news channels is when something momentous is happening, like the vote last night.

I find it difficult to even have civil discussions on political topics with people who get their news from sources like Fox, MSNBC, Townhall.com, Huffington Post, etc... Many times they are uninformed or misinformed about the other side of the topic simply because their "news" source does not give it any fair coverage.

Comparing MSNBC, which has a block of opinion shows in the evening (three of which are openly progressive but at least trade in facts instead of baldfaced lies), but otherwise is a straight news network during the day with Fox is such an insane false equivalency. Fox is 24/7 propaganda. Their real "news" shows prop up extremists and they've supported and built up the Tea Party movement. Huffington does a decent job in separating their news and their opinion pieces, clearly marking each. Townhall can't say that.

The major conservative movement in this country is based on lies, name calling, and fear. It's stupid that liberal and progressive sites or a news network that give people who are openly progressive news shows (while spending the rest of their time being at minimum center right) get compared to the absolute worst of the conservative noise machine. MSNBC has fucking David Gregory, king of letting conservative liars get away with any crazy thing they can think to vomit, hosting Meet the Press. That's pretty much the last word on their "bias."

That's what blows me away. I hear commenters talk about how biased MSNBC is all the time, but the only proof they can show is the three shows that are openly progressive (and those are the only three openly progressive shows in all of cable news). Yet for all the bitching about these progressive "propaganda" shows I almost never hear anyone talking about them lying, because those people don't lie and when they get something wrong they apologize.

If you can honestly watch the interviews that Rachel Maddow has done with conservative guests and say for even a moment that she isn't fair, tough but fair, I'll eat my hat. Fox's NEWS shows cut liberal's mics when they're giving answers. MSNBC's commentary shows don't even do that. The media sucks, but the idea that they're all the same is just stupid. If MSNBC's hosts were ever caught in a lie or scandal the way FOX's hosts and proxies have been (Bill's million dollar sexual harassment suit, Hannity's "charity" for the troops that gives 7% of its earnings to the actual family's of troops, Glenn Beck calling for violence against progressives, Hannity/Bill/Levin/Ingram/King all being cited and quoted in the "suicide" notes of right wing loonies who shoot up progressive CHURCHES, the same people all calling for the death of George Tiller who was then gunned down in his church, I could fucking go on for days) the "liberal" media would bring holy fire upon them.

That's because the "liberal" media is a fucking myth; a big lie repeated so often by the insane right that the media itself fights it every day. So they go after progressives and liberals 250% and never raise a finger to investigate republicans because they don't want to look biased. Apparently pointing out blatant lies by republicans about the health care bill would have been biased. Investigating the massive amount of evidence about the lies that lead us to war in Iraq would have been biased. Asking ANY tough questions of Bush would have been biased. Fuck, pointing out that the children screaming the loudest about socialism right now are the same people who didn't say a word when the republicans spent eight years emptying the national wallet for shit they didn't want to pay for.

Yet any attack on Obama is front page news. They actually have the balls to ask if Obama was working in a bipartisan way, when SINGLE PAYER OFF THE TABLE FROM THE START WAS A PRETTY BIG GIFT FOR REPUBLICANS. One that seriously damaged him with his base. If any of MSNBC's progressives were ever wrong 1% of the time as much as everyone at Fox is all the time it would be news. The reason it isn't news is simple. For all the bluster about how biased they are MSNBC has done a really good job being tough and obviously progressive on three of their six opinion shows (only 3 of which are actually progressive, which I think it pretty fucking fair and balanced) while hiring people who simply don't lie.

I'm stoked the progressive movement has three voices who get a national spotlight, and keep it by telling the truth, something the 80% of the rest of the media noise machine made up of conservative shreikers can't say. So can we please stop with the false equivalency?

Attack Olberman for being a pompous horses ass, that's fair. Attack Shoultz for calling people psychos when they say things that are obviously psycho, because hey news personalities should be above name calling even when those names are based in reality. And attack Maddow for... I don't know. Being goofy sometimes when she's talking about serious and complex topics? But you can't say they're liars.

[steventangent]

Tonight on Fox :

When Liberals Attack

[lokithelion]

Hahaha seriously.

[steventangent]

I'm still waiting to see it, though it's practically every day anyway.

[kurtz]

@loki (I don't want to quote that whole thing)

I never said MSNBC lies and they are not quite on the same level as Fox, but they have a very obvious bias even in their regular news. Same as Huffington Post. Much more than the other major news networks. Just because you agree with them does not mean the bias does not exist.

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

do you think he does coke and fucks hookers during commercials, because sometimes I think he does.

[lokithelion]

@loki (I don't want to quote that whole thing)

I never said MSNBC lies and they are not quite on the same level as Fox, but they have a very obvious bias even in their regular news. Same as Huffington Post. Much more than the other major news networks. Just because you agree with them does not mean the bias does not exist.

Please show me where MSNBC's normal news shows a liberal bias? It's obvious, so it shouldn't be hard. Hell CNN shows more political bias in their hard news reporting than MSNBC does.

[kurtz]

@loki (I don't want to quote that whole thing)

I never said MSNBC lies and they are not quite on the same level as Fox, but they have a very obvious bias even in their regular news. Same as Huffington Post. Much more than the other major news networks. Just because you agree with them does not mean the bias does not exist.

Please show me where MSNBC's normal news shows a liberal bias? It's obvious, so it shouldn't be hard. Hell CNN shows more political bias in their hard news reporting than MSNBC does.

http://www.journalism.org/node/13437

I don't think these numbers would change much if you did the same study today.

[lokithelion]

Please show me where MSNBC's normal news shows a liberal bias? It's obvious, so it shouldn't be hard. Hell CNN shows more political bias in their hard news reporting than MSNBC does.

http://www.journalism.org/node/13437

I don't think these numbers would change much if you did the same study today.

Probably not if you did the same study, since that study includes the exact information I agreed with you on. That study includes their obviously ideologically based programing. I was asking you about their actual news coverage, not including the opinion shows.

If McCain's negatives were higher it might have something to do with how badly he ran his campaign and how unpopular he was during the campaign. Most republicans I know were angry he got the nomination and consider it one of the worst ever run. You don't get to suspend your campaign because the world is falling apart and then not expect to get hit for not being able to be cool under pressure. You don't pick a VP who isn't qualified to run the country if you're an old man on death's door and expect that to just be ignored. Other than Fox. That being said this study doesn't explain what they consider negative coverage.

For example reporting on the fake controversy of Obama's citizenship is negative reporting, and something all three networks did, but is it the same kind of negative reporting as reporting that Sarah Palin can't answer high school level questions about her party and future job? I've read this Journalism study before but it's overly simple and doesn't show if a distinction between reporting about substantive issues in an election and bullshit smears was made.

Also the idea that Fox's coverage of McCain was 40% negative is absolutely laughable, unless the study covers the whole election cycle when Fox's talking heads were doing everything they could to stop McCain and get Romney the nomination.

[lokithelion]

Also their methodology sucks. This is what they coded regarding cable coverage.

Daytime (2:00 to 2:30 pm) coded 2 out of 3 every day

CNN

Fox News

MSNBC

Nighttime CNN – coded 3 out of the 4 every day

Situation Room (6 pm)

Lou Dobbs Tonight

CNN Election Center

Anderson Cooper 360

Nighttime Fox News – coded 3 out of the 4 every day

Special Report w/ Brit Hume

Fox Report w/ Shepard Smith

O’Reilly Factor

Hannity & Colmes

Nighttime MSNBC – coded 2 out of the 4 every day

Race for the White House

Hardball (7 pm)

Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann

Rachel Maddow

Instead of watching each channel and hour equally they covered two of four instead of three of four when it came to MSNBC each night. Instead of watching each channel for the same amount of time during daytime hours they only watched two channels every day, leaving the others out. Also they only watched daytime coverage for thirty minutes, leaving out Fox's morning opinion shows like "Fox and Friends" where some of the most insane conspiracy theories about Obama and the insane Palin worship was going down. This "study" is based on flipping on the channel for a thirty minutes during the news day and then watching whatever is on at night. Seriously?

Also this is how they picked between positive and negative.

"In order for a story to be coded as either “positive” or “negative,” it must have either 1.5 times the amount of positive comments to negative comments, or 1.5 times the amount of negative comments to positive comments (with an exception for 2 to 3, which is coded as “neutral”). If the headline or lead has a positive or negative tone, it was counted twice into the total value. Also counted twice for tone were the first three paragraphs or first four sentences, whichever came first."

So a show like Hannity and Colms is a neutral show because Colms is saying nice things about Obama while Hannity is shouting over him?

Oh and they didn't actually watch the shows in question. They watched

"Two 30-minute segments for Fox News (60 minutes)

Two 30-minute segments for CNN (60 minutes)

Two 30-minute segments for MSNBC (60 minutes)"

It's a sloppy study by a organization that frankly I expect better out of. So it doesn't carry much weight with me.

[xxmartinxx]

Fox News makes me glad I don't have cable.

[sgoodcore]

Two words: Ass hat. Guy is the worst kind of person, right there with Rush Limbaugh.

[andrew13]

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=102672403103333&ref=nf

[saxamaphone]

Two words: Ass hat. Guy is the worst kind of person, right there with Rush Limbaugh.

[mcm1610]

Speaking of... Jon Steward is mocking the fuck out of GB right now on the Daily Show. It's pretty solid just 4 minutes in.