http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-m ... tourette-s

And no one believes that he murdered a young woman in 1990.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beck_v._Eiland-Hall

Oh thank you for that, I'm still laughing!

Much of what Glen Beck says is accurate. The guy is clearly biased and emotional and has an agenda.

Last week I watched Glen Beck talking about the founding fathers. In order to support his conclusion that the founders were indeed theists he hand-selected the 3 founders that were outspoken theists and focused on their words and actions. People need to be able to see through that sort of deception.

Likewise, liberals ought to be open enough to consider some of the valid points he makes, such as that Obama has surrounded himself with a core group of people that have a history of bashing the United States, Capitalism and industry in general.

It never ceases to amaze me of how both conservatives and liberals can never concede a point to the other side. It is always an us vs. them mentality where everything the other side does or says is clearly demented and of the devil.

Glen Beck is using a bad and extreme analogy. Let's call it a false analogy so we can move on from that point. Even with that said the majority of what the guy talks about is very accurate - just emotionally charged and painful to hear if you're a liberal.

I don't know, Chris.

I have seen precious little from Beck that doesn't fall under the umbrella of next-level idiocy.

Chris OConnor wrote:Much of what Glen Beck says is accurate. The guy is clearly biased and emotional and has an agenda.

Last week I watched Glen Beck talking about the founding fathers. In order to support his conclusion that the founders were indeed theists he hand-selected the 3 founders that were outspoken theists and focused on their words and actions. People need to be able to see through that sort of deception.

Likewise, liberals ought to be open enough to consider some of the valid points he makes, such as that Obama has surrounded himself with a core group of people that have a history of bashing the United States, Capitalism and industry in general.

It never ceases to amaze me of how both conservatives and liberals can never concede a point to the other side. It is always an us vs. them mentality where everything the other side does or says is clearly demented and of the devil.

Glen Beck is using a bad and extreme analogy. Let's call it a false analogy so we can move on from that point. Even with that said the majority of what the guy talks about is very accurate - just emotionally charged and painful to hear if you're a liberal.

Responding to the bolded line above, I can only say that it is an unfortunate reality that most people will not realize it is a false analogy and therefore they will not move on from that point.

I've actually never seen Beck's show but I see the wreckage he leaves behind. My brother told me recently that he thinks Obama is Evil. And in the next sentence he suggested I should spend a week listening to Rush Limbaugh and watching Glenn Beck. I've heard Rush Limbaugh and I think he is a pompous windbag and a waste of human tissue. My observation would be Beck doesn't promote anything close to a reasonable dialogue between liberals and conservatives. The Hitler analogies do seem to show only that he wants to appeal to fear and only add to the polarization which I think is damaging to our country. It is an unfortunate side of television "news" that people like Beck can spew these extremist views and be taken seriously. I tell everyone I know that they shouldn't watch television news at all. Read newspapers, and not just one, but many. These television personalities are just talking heads with opinions that should be taken with a grain of salt but unfortunately this is the only source of news for most people. If Beck made even a half-assed attempt to apply some critical thinking skills to his job he could be positive instead of a negative influence.

Someone like Beck who does have a large audience should feel a great weight on his shoulders. Like Oprah, whose sphere of influence is much greater than it should be, and yet she chooses instead to promote all kinds of garbage and pseudoscience. She and Beck could make a positive difference in the world, but ultimately it seems they are only interested in ratings and maintaining their own over-inflated egos.

Granted, I'm probably revealing many of my own emotional biases in this diatribe. The funny thing or sad fact is that I would probably agree with the most of Beck's political views (and possibly some of Limbaugh's too) but because of the way they choose to make their mark on the world I find them to be reckless and irresponsible.

I agree Geo.

Far from trying to insulate myself from opposing view-points, i always try to get to the root of their issues.

I have several friends who lean heavily into republican positions. When we have political discussions, i always hold my piece, and listen to them, only asking questions for clarification, or to get them to analyze a position i do not agree with themselves.

I will "hold forth" if they ask a position on something, but generally i want to understand the position of those who disagree with me on these political issues.

Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Coulter are the disease that rots our news machine. They do not even attempt to put forward a non-biased, or even accurate depiction of critical issues because they have an agenda to push, and that comes before all else.

Once again, Politics is a team sport. These people are the cheer leaders. It doesnt matter if the position is right, so long as it is your team. Hell, it could even be the same position as your opponents, but you must boo it if it comes from one of their mouths, and cheer it when it issues from one of your team mates.

Johnson,

I think you nailed it on the head with the statement that these pundits have an agenda. The agenda is not to deliver a fair or realistic news report but to push a political ideology. Whatever it takes. Pursuing the truth is not the goal. As Chris says , Beck does make good points but because of these dishonest tactics he can't be trusted.

To be fair I'm sure there are plenty of pundits on the other side of the aisle as well who push their liberal agendas with no regard for the truth.

I find it amazing how the profession of journalism, once considered a cornerstone of democratic society, has slide into a murky and unsavory mix of cheap entertainment, and into convenient platforms for making self-serving statements. There is now a gray area in between “real” news, and a variety of pseudo news-entertainment like programs. Some are fairly innocuous, clearly meant to be funny; although it is a little alarming that some seem to take them seriously.

It used to be considered a fundamental ethic of professionalism that journalists reported the news rather than making it, and that they did so in a way that scrupulously avoided adding any of their own personal opinions. Opinions were left for the Op-Ed page, and more importantly, it was left for the reader to make up his or her own mind, after receiving a balanced set of facts. But this was the journalism of Edward Murrow and Walter Cronkite. Today we have something different.

I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that the journalistic style of Glenn Beck and his fellow travelers is meant as entertainment. A kind of lowbrow entertainment to be sure, along the lines of the National Enquirer , dog fights, or circus freak-shows. My understanding is that there is good money in it, and if one is an extrovert, what the heck, it’s probably fun as well. This says something about the level of culture in this part of the world, but other than that, it’s not a huge problem.

The problem comes in if, and this seems a definite possibility, these people are really serious about what they say. They advocate some extreme views, forcefully, with a kind of just under the surface rage. Their views are often far enough to the right that they flirt dangerously with what used to be called fascism.

One has a right to express one’s views of course. But the flip side of right is responsibility. In the case of those who would like to be considered journalists, responsibility means checking facts at the very least, and preferably doing the reading and undertaking the courses of study that will allow one to make informed statements about the world, if one want to make them in the media. If indeed the right-wing pundits are sincere in their commentary, they are displaying a knowledge of the world that would make many high-school social studies students shake their heads in dismay.

Despite being awash in information today, many choose to not take an interest in events, or if they do to take in quick and easy to digest snippets, a sound bite here or there, a tidbit that doesn’t take up too much time or energy. The son of a famous prime minister here in Canada recently was heard to say: I don’t read newspapers- if something important happens, someone will tell me. Unfortunately, it is a common sentiment. By listening to only a few loud voices, and not expending the energy to explore issues in any kind of depth, it is easier to be influenced by others. How do you say something is wrong, if you have nothing to compare it to?

If the few loud voices that one happens to catch are accepted as “news”, and are seen as informed and reasonable comment, are ones advocating extreme views, then there is a problem.

Speaking of Glenn Beck, I'm really excited to read his fiction book - The Overton Window.

I'm sure it'll be hilarious.