Do you NOT watch Glen Beck?

[Guest]

If you intentionally do not watch Glen Beck, why?

Yoda

[Guest]

I don't find his program particulary entertaining. A little strident for my tastes. "You are not a real Republician if you don't pass the following 25 litmus tests." Now O'Reilly and the Fox All Stars are always fun to watch. Who is more thought provoking than Charles Krauthammer?

[Guest]

I do not watch Glen Beck because I choose which entertainers I wish to watch. Quite some time ago, 'the news', as far as television goes, stopped being independant and became part of the 'entertainment' divisions of the various network-owning corporations.

For "news", I prefer "printed" sources - even if the 'print' is on the web.

Beck, Olberman, Limbaugh, Cuomo, Malkin, etc - they are, at best, commentators. They're certainly not 'newspeople'.

Why would I specifically avoid Beck? Because of his shilling for a gold-trading company while trying to cause a panic during his show (railing about how the economy is dying and people are moving their money to precious metals, then a commercial coming on for GoldLine). It hasn't exactly gone un-noticed: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1022

He contradicts himself - sometimes in the same breath. Jon Stewart has gotten some mileage out of showing the clip where he says Obama hates white people and then, 70 seconds later, contradicts himself saying he doesn't think Obama hates white people.

At least when guys like Cronkite or Brinkley would do opinion pieces, they would write them down, think them through and deliver them with consistency.

I don't mean to pick on Beck singularly. I apologize that it was just the handiest example. This is something infecting news all over the place. I'm reminded of a cartoon I saw some years ago (Arlo and Janis for those who might remember). Arlo, the dad, walks in on his son, Gene, who is sitting on the couch watching TV. Arlo looks for a moment and says "Ok, I give up - which one is Beavis and which one is Butthead?". Gene replies "Dad.. This is CNN's Crossfire..."

That's a good summary of why I rarely, if ever, watch CNN/FOX/MSNBC

[Guest]

I don't watch Glenn because he is to negative. I am very conservative, listen to Rush if i am in the car but will not listen to Glenn, just to negative for me. Don't watch much of any national news anymore. Just too stupid to listen to. Do watch some of the local news but that is pretty stupid too. If I need to watch news for real breaking news I watch fox.

[Guest]

Quoting "Number 6" above...

"I don't find his program particulary entertaining. A little strident for my tastes. "You are not a real Republician if you don't pass the following 25 litmus tests." Now O'Reilly and the Fox All Stars are always fun to watch. Who is more thought provoking than Charles Krauthammer?"

True, Beck is quite strident... with ease he "throws the Republicans under the bus" as well as Democrats. I think, however, that he is sincere in looking for the best possible representation, and perhaps that's what we need. Not all (but many) in Washington seem to have forgotten that they are there to serve the best interests of the country. Too many seem only interested in power and re-election... no matter the cost to the nation.

I totally agree with your comments about O'Reilly, The All Stars, and Krauthammer! A day without Charles can be a day without keen insight and thoughtful commentary.

[Guest]

If you intentionally do not watch Glen Beck, why?

Yoda

I thought Rush was bad until Glen Beck.....If he were the only thing on TV I would still turn him off. Now for the why...he distorts the facts and plays on peoples fears. For example on July 31 Glen Beck told his viewers that if they logged on to cars.gov that the government would get complete access to your computer and all of your files. He then read them the warning message they would see:

Beck: This application provides access to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a federal computer system and it is property of the United States Government. Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DoT, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign.

Beck had logged into the secure website for the dealers not the website for the general public. And he distorted the information.

Then the CZAR thing....Beck had a list of 32 Obama Czars characterized them as a collective "iceberg" threatening to capsize the constitution. Of the 32 "Czars" 8 were confirmed by the Senate, not a Czar, 8 not appointed by Obama, 15 Czars were in positions created by previous administrations.. So out of the 32 Beck quoted only 8 were appointed by Obama, unconfirmed brand new Czars. Now the fun part the previous administration had ..... 35 Czars.

I could go on but.....

[Guest]

Regarding the Czars, here is a link to Glenn's site where he shows the Czars in question. He clearly indicates the positions that existed under previous adminisntrations, and he also shows the dates the current Czars were appointed.

Judged for yourself:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/

Regarding the Cash for Clunkers, here is a link to his radio transcript where he previews his upcoming TV show on the topic. Please be sure to read the second paragraph:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/28815/

Again... judge for yourself.

Did he mis-speak on TV? I don't know... I don't have a recording of the show. Is he full of passion? Yes... but distortions are not Beck's style.

[Guest]

DVR every episode.

[Guest]

I don't watch Beck simply because I find myself out of the house and doing other things at 5:00 PM. I spend little time watching or listening the talking heads be they representatives of the right or the left. People, reading books or newspapers, church activities, movies and entertainment on the squares are much more interesting.

Apparently a number of people do enjoy watching him and I am glad for them. It is just not for me.

[Guest]

Beck is one of the most intelligent and capable speakers of the day.

Because he presents facts and backs them up he is a threat to coolade drinkers.

Watch him every night for one week and you will see he is a positive brilliant thinker who tells the truth and loves America.

[Guest]

Tells the truth? Ok, I'm sure he *does* tell the truth a lot on his show - but I certainly wouldn't take his word as gospel. For example:

Beck has said or implied that White House special adviser Van Jones went to prison for taking part in the Rodney King riots. Van has never served time in any prison. He has never been convicted of any crime. Van was not even in Los Angeles during the riots.

During the February 12, 2009 edition of his Fox News program, Glenn Beck aired an on-screen graphic with the headline, "THEN ... WAGNER ACT," which falsely asserted that if 30 percent of employees want a union, "it gets established." The "30 percent" is from the TAFT-HARTLEY Act that says if 30% want a union, it means an ELECTION must be held. Is this more of Glenn Beck's not knowing what his staff is putting on the screen? (Like his recent 9/12 video faux-pas)

How about 6 days later? From Fox's transcript:

BECK: Brain Room downstairs, which is our fact-checker -- I saw something come across my desk the other day -- that the average UAW worker makes a hundred -- I think it was -- Gresh, what was it? A hundred and fifty-four or $152 an hour when you look at -- what?

OFF-SCREEN: A hundred and fifty-four.

BECK: A hundred and fifty-four dollars an hour if you look at -- you know, if you add in all of the benefits. A hundred and fifty-four dollars an hour? How could you possibly be competitive?


Try $55/hr in wages and benefits, Glenn. When questioned about it, Beck later said that he saw it "come across my desk the other day."

On April 13th he claimed that the Iowa Supreme Court ruling that struck down a stat ban on same-sex marriage "is actually about going into churches and going in and attacking churches and saying you can't teach anything else." Of course, the fact that the Court explicitly stated that constitutional principles "require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected." doesn't seem to have made it to his desk.

On July 20th, he said the Air Force spent $1.4M to "repair a door". The fact that it was a HANGAR door and that the $1.4M was for more than just that ($1.2M to replace gas mains and $246,100 for the hangar door) didn't seem to matter.

On August 14th, he reiterated that Sarah Palin was "right" about the "deather part of this bill" - regardless of how much the "death panels" rhetoric had already been disproven.

On August 26th he said that OMB director Pete Orszag was a 'czar' who didn't go through any confirmation process when, in fact, he did. On 1/13/09 he testified befor ethe Senat Budget Committe and on 1/20 he was confirmed by UNANIMOUS consent.

January 30th of this year, he mocks "BARF" - a government acronym for "Bad Asset relief Fund". Trouble is, it doesn't exist. I'll give him a bit of a slide because he may have gotten it from Neil Cavuto.

He's MediaMatters.Org 2009 Misinformer of the Year.

Heck, just yesterday (2/3) he said Obama's 2011 budget proposal has 'magic money' coming from cap-and-trade when, according to people who've seen it, it does not.

Now here's the kicker - at heart, there are a lot of areas where I agree with the SOURCE of Beck's opinions - things like runaway government spending, decreasing personal responsibility in a "blame someone else" society. But I would NEVER want someone carrying my banner who was so EASILY picked apart.

He's just not careful. He seems to jump the gun in the eagerness to "get" someone. It really harms his credibility. Sure, he sounds great when he's preaching to the choir, but to others, he sounds like a moonbat!

He's an entertainer. He's certainly not a journalist. I mean, if I can find those examples in ONE SINGLE Google search...

[Guest]

Tells the truth? Ok, I'm sure he *does* tell the truth a lot on his show - but I certainly wouldn't take his word as gospel. For example:

Beck has said or implied that White House special adviser Van Jones went to prison for taking part in the Rodney King riots. Van has never served time in any prison. He has never been convicted of any crime. Van was not even in Los Angeles during the riots.

During the February 12, 2009 edition of his Fox News program, Glenn Beck aired an on-screen graphic with the headline, "THEN ... WAGNER ACT," which falsely asserted that if 30 percent of employees want a union, "it gets established." The "30 percent" is from the TAFT-HARTLEY Act that says if 30% want a union, it means an ELECTION must be held. Is this more of Glenn Beck's not knowing what his staff is putting on the screen? (Like his recent 9/12 video faux-pas)

How about 6 days later? From Fox's transcript:


Try $55/hr in wages and benefits, Glenn. When questioned about it, Beck later said that he saw it "come across my desk the other day."

On April 13th he claimed that the Iowa Supreme Court ruling that struck down a stat ban on same-sex marriage "is actually about going into churches and going in and attacking churches and saying you can't teach anything else." Of course, the fact that the Court explicitly stated that constitutional principles "require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected." doesn't seem to have made it to his desk.

On July 20th, he said the Air Force spent $1.4M to "repair a door". The fact that it was a HANGAR door and that the $1.4M was for more than just that ($1.2M to replace gas mains and $246,100 for the hangar door) didn't seem to matter.

On August 14th, he reiterated that Sarah Palin was "right" about the "deather part of this bill" - regardless of how much the "death panels" rhetoric had already been disproven.

On August 26th he said that OMB director Pete Orszag was a 'czar' who didn't go through any confirmation process when, in fact, he did. On 1/13/09 he testified befor ethe Senat Budget Committe and on 1/20 he was confirmed by UNANIMOUS consent.

January 30th of this year, he mocks "BARF" - a government acronym for "Bad Asset relief Fund". Trouble is, it doesn't exist. I'll give him a bit of a slide because he may have gotten it from Neil Cavuto.

He's MediaMatters.Org 2009 Misinformer of the Year.

Heck, just yesterday (2/3) he said Obama's 2011 budget proposal has 'magic money' coming from cap-and-trade when, according to people who've seen it, it does not.

Now here's the kicker - at heart, there are a lot of areas where I agree with the SOURCE of Beck's opinions - things like runaway government spending, decreasing personal responsibility in a "blame someone else" society. But I would NEVER want someone carrying my banner who was so EASILY picked apart.

He's just not careful. He seems to jump the gun in the eagerness to "get" someone. It really harms his credibility. Sure, he sounds great when he's preaching to the choir, but to others, he sounds like a moonbat!

He's an entertainer. He's certainly not a journalist. I mean, if I can find those examples in ONE SINGLE Google search...

You are a great example of why someone should watch im for a week or so and stop getting all your information from those like media matters and the huff & puff post.

If you think Beck stated something wrong, call HIM on it. If he was wrong he'll say "Sorry". Will you?

Yoda

[Guest]

I've always been man enough to admit when I've been wrong. At times, it's been my job to find out where things went wrong and find ways to ensure it never happens again. I'd admit when things were my fault because, quite frankly, blaming someone else seemed a coward's defense. Besides, when something went wrong and it was NOT my fault, I had more credibility because of when I *did* admit fault - nobody's perfect.

Newspapers run their retractions, corrections and clarifications all the time - though frequently not with the same zest or attention-grabbing typefaces as the original error.

Now I mean this in all sincerity - is there a "Glenn Beck Oops" page where he admits or explains some of the things that I pointed out before? It's certainly easy enough to find the misstatements and errors. I mean, I only quoted a few where very exacting statements were made and skipped a few that were more vague. ...and no, I never went anywhere near Huffington-Post.

[Guest]

djplong, was media matters your source? Just curious.

[Guest]

I've always been man enough to admit when I've been wrong. At times, it's been my job to find out where things went wrong and find ways to ensure it never happens again. I'd admit when things were my fault because, quite frankly, blaming someone else seemed a coward's defense. Besides, when something went wrong and it was NOT my fault, I had more credibility because of when I *did* admit fault - nobody's perfect.

Newspapers run their retractions, corrections and clarifications all the time - though frequently not with the same zest or attention-grabbing typefaces as the original error.

Now I mean this in all sincerity - is there a "Glenn Beck Oops" page where he admits or explains some of the things that I pointed out before? It's certainly easy enough to find the misstatements and errors. I mean, I only quoted a few where very exacting statements were made and skipped a few that were more vague. ...and no, I never went anywhere near Huffington-Post.

Beck corrects his errors on air. I don't know if he has an "oops" page, but you can read transcripts of his show on his website.

I would suggest that you try to watch and listen to both sides although it can be painful at times... I know because I try to do it as much as possible. I say "watch and listen" because if you rely primarily on print media (as I believe you indicated in a previous post) you are like a frog being slowly brought to a boil. It's like sensory adaptation from an information standpoint. There is a serious bias in the press as I'm sure you know many people see, and perhaps you also suspect because you seem like a reasonable man. If you are not getting your information from all sides (using a variety of media sources, especially in today's world) you don't really know where the truth lies.

Who knows... if you actually watch Beck and O'Reilly for a few months you might be like a lot of other frogs who have jumped out of the pot and are now Fox News Junkies! I won't hold my breath on that idea, but the Fox News ratings are through the roof while other networks and newspapers are dropping.

I'm sure you have seen this before, but I just could not resist...

If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed. - Mark Twain

[Guest]

New York Times print their corrections buried in the middle of the paper where nobody reads them.

[Guest]

I've always been man enough to admit when I've been wrong. At times, it's been my job to find out where things went wrong and find ways to ensure it never happens again. I'd admit when things were my fault because, quite frankly, blaming someone else seemed a coward's defense. Besides, when something went wrong and it was NOT my fault, I had more credibility because of when I *did* admit fault - nobody's perfect.

Newspapers run their retractions, corrections and clarifications all the time - though frequently not with the same zest or attention-grabbing typefaces as the original error.

Now I mean this in all sincerity - is there a "Glenn Beck Oops" page where he admits or explains some of the things that I pointed out before? It's certainly easy enough to find the misstatements and errors. I mean, I only quoted a few where very exacting statements were made and skipped a few that were more vague. ...and no, I never went anywhere near Huffington-Post.

I have only seen him state his retractions, on air.

Yoda

[Guest]

Well, that's refreshing. Obviously the retractions haven't gained as much notariety as the initial 'mistake' - just like how newspapers bury their retractions and corrections.

Responding to Allen's point about 'both sides', I agree. But I don't really watch the visual media for news. In my browser, you'll find a "News" folder with links to:

Boston Globe - liberal
Boston Herald - conservative
Montreal Gazette - Middle of the road by Canadian standards
Nashua Telegraph - somewhat liberal
Manchester Union Leader - Uber-conservative
USA Today - sometimes seems to depend on the whim of the editor
MSNBC.COM - Well-indexed page

In addition I have highly customized Yahoo and Google News pages and a page full of RSS feeds on my phone.

I *do* get both sides of the story. Fox, CNN and MSNBC are atrocious for actually reporting news. They make what we used to call "scratching the surface" look like deep investigative journalism. Fox's slant is WAY over to the right. MSNBC seems a bit quieter about it but it's definitely to the left. CNN, on the other hand, has gone from being THE source for news to being THE place that does little more than ask it's viewers to comment on everything. These people constantly cut away from stories ("We have to leave it right there" is all to common) as if they were editing an MTV video. Oh, I forgot. MTV, Music Television, doesn't show music anymore. Fox/CNN/MSNBC seem to forget they are *24/7* channels and they DO have the time to get deep into a story.

It's shocked me to find just about the only source of DEEP reporting is, and I can't believe I'm saying this, Dan Rather. He'll spend up to an HOUR on a SINGLE story on HDNet's "Dan Rather Reports".

Unfortunately, today's visual media news is the equivalent of the carny barkers on the midway, screaming for your attention for a moment or two...

[Guest]

I would not be so quick to lump all "visual news" together and come to a conclusion. Fox news does an admirable job of in-depth reporting. They do have their "talk shows" but their news is still the best.

[Guest]

In fact, "Double Dittos" to Donna2 (I just couldn't resist the alliteration!).

As to djplong...


Responding to Allen's point about 'both sides', I agree. But I don't really watch the visual media for news. In my browser, you'll find a "News" folder with links to:

Boston Globe - liberal
Boston Herald - conservative
Montreal Gazette - Middle of the road by Canadian standards
Nashua Telegraph - somewhat liberal
Manchester Union Leader - Uber-conservative
USA Today - sometimes seems to depend on the whim of the editor
MSNBC.COM - Well-indexed page

In addition I have highly customized Yahoo and Google News pages and a page full of RSS feeds on my phone.

I *do* get both sides of the story. Fox, CNN and MSNBC are atrocious for actually reporting news. They make what we used to call "scratching the surface" look like deep investigative journalism. Fox's slant is WAY over to the right. MSNBC seems a bit quieter about it but it's definitely to the left. CNN, on the other hand, has gone from being THE source for news to being THE place that does little more than ask it's viewers to comment on everything. These people constantly cut away from stories ("We have to leave it right there" is all to common) as if they were editing an MTV video. Oh, I forgot. MTV, Music Television, doesn't show music anymore. Fox/CNN/MSNBC seem to forget they are *24/7* channels and they DO have the time to get deep into a story.

It's shocked me to find just about the only source of DEEP reporting is, and I can't believe I'm saying this, Dan Rather. He'll spend up to an HOUR on a SINGLE story on HDNet's "Dan Rather Reports".

Unfortunately, today's visual media news is the equivalent of the carny barkers on the midway, screaming for your attention for a moment or two...

With all due respect, you are making my point for me. Unfortunately, I am sure you cannot now see it.

Though hope springs eternal, I think it's time take the old "agree to disagree" approach and move on.

By the way, it's the New Hampshire Union Leader (not the Manchester Union Leader), but I'm sure you know that... since it is one of your primary "conservative" news sources.

I truly wish you well.

[Guest]

Donna - I suspect that your definition of "in depth" and mine are probably different. When I look at transcripts of what seem to be longer stories on tv news, they are, to me, alarmingly short. I guess my definition of 'in depth' would be easier to find when compared in "column-inches", to use an old newspaper term.

Allen - Respectfully, which point are you referring to? I would like to think I disproved any misconceptions that I only read/see "liberal" news. It's 'entertainment news' that I just can't bear to watch anymore. Maybe it's because I grew up with what *I* consider to be more dignified news anchors - and now I have to put up with "What's in your pantry that may be poisoning you? We'll tell you at 11!" or any combination of scare-you-into-watching bumpers. ...and another thing, what if I'm going into my pantry at 9:30?

And on those occasions when I DO watch tv news (usually weekday mornings around 5:30am) they spend their money on style instead of substance. They'll send a reporter to stand in front of a building to report on a story. There's nobody to interview there. Heck, nobody's awake. Sometimes it'll be as bad as "this afternoon - something will happen here" or "yesterday there were people here". They design and build multimillion dollar studios (in Boston, Channel 7 was the first and worst at this) that try to make Mission Control in Houston look like a home-video setup. All style, no substance.

And don't get me started on the commercials. I don't know how the 6 o'clock news is these days, but the morning news is *all* car, furniture and jewelry ads.

Why don't I watch 'visual' news more often? Because there's so little NEWS there. Between the commercials, the chatter, the promos, etc, there's little room LEFT. When I *read* something, however, 100% of that time is reading - input. Far more efficient. ...to say nothing of the fact that I can skip EVERY Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson, supermodel or movie studio "news" and stick to stories that ARE news.

...and, yeah, I know it's the "NH" Union Leader, but that's a recent (to me) change and old habits die hard (I moved to NH in 1974). Since we have award-winning papers in other cities here in New Hampshire, I'll always think of them as "Manchester".

[Guest]

djplong, I am just curious about your source(s) for a prior post listing the items Glenn Beck said or implied that were inaccurate or misleading. B.K.

[Guest]

djplong,

First off...

Please do not let my reply cause Bk's question to get set aside... I do not wish to be the cause of having it "fall through the cracks" as it seems to have done earlier.

Thereafter...

Allen - Respectfully, which point are you referring to? I would like to think I disproved any misconceptions that I only read/see "liberal" news. It's 'entertainment news' that I just can't bear to watch anymore. Maybe it's because I grew up with what *I* consider to be more dignified news anchors - and now I have to put up with "What's in your pantry that may be poisoning you? We'll tell you at 11!" or any combination of scare-you-into-watching bumpers. ...and another thing, what if I'm going into my pantry at 9:30?

And on those occasions when I DO watch tv news (usually weekday mornings around 5:30am) they spend their money on style instead of substance. They'll send a reporter to stand in front of a building to report on a story. There's nobody to interview there. Heck, nobody's awake. Sometimes it'll be as bad as "this afternoon - something will happen here" or "yesterday there were people here". They design and build multimillion dollar studios (in Boston, Channel 7 was the first and worst at this) that try to make Mission Control in Houston look like a home-video setup. All style, no substance.

And don't get me started on the commercials. I don't know how the 6 o'clock news is these days, but the morning news is *all* car, furniture and jewelry ads.

Why don't I watch 'visual' news more often? Because there's so little NEWS there. Between the commercials, the chatter, the promos, etc, there's little room LEFT. When I *read* something, however, 100% of that time is reading - input. Far more efficient. ...to say nothing of the fact that I can skip EVERY Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson, supermodel or movie studio "news" and stick to stories that ARE news.

...and, yeah, I know it's the "NH" Union Leader, but that's a recent (to me) change and old habits die hard (I moved to NH in 1974). Since we have award-winning papers in other cities here in New Hampshire, I'll always think of them as "Manchester".

I'll readily agree with you that there is a lot of very shallow news programming out there... especially Local (I can hardly stand it) and Network news. However, Fox does provide very good coverage in their news blocks. I think you would be surprised if you actually tuned into (or recorded) Neil Cavuto at 4:00 PM, Bret Baier at 6:00 PM, Shepard Smith at 7:00 PM or even O'Reilly (commentary) at 8:00 PM... and let's not forget Beck at 5:00 PM (which is where this all started). Not that Beck's is a news program... I just think you might be surprised by all of his research and documentation.

To be fair, Beck does not like what is going on in Washington, he is very upset about what he believes Progressives want to do to this country and he "calls out" Progressives on both sides. (Progressives in the true historical sense of the term... not the intentional "sunshine and lollypop" substitution of Progressive for Liberal in the so called "main stream media" today.) O'Reilly is an Independent and as he says "he is just looking out for the folks". If you had been watching him, you would have seen that has "bent over backwards" to be fair to Obama but he does now seem to now be losing patience with him.

Can television (or radio) go into the same depth as print? Not easily in today's marketplace... I agree with you there, but if you are really looking for some semblance of balance (although I'm sure you think you already have it), I suggest you try Fox in a few of the above time slots. This may initially be a total anathema to you since you seem to be getting most of your news from a print media which has been proven to be in the neighborhood of 85% liberal political affiliation by admission on more than one occasion.

Again we are taking about balance here... if you are going to use *Dan Rather* (fired by CBS because of biased reporting) and *MSNBC* as some of your sources, the least you could do is include Fox... if not Limbaugh to balance that out. (Thought you might enjoy the Limbaugh recommendation... but I'll take Limbaugh over Olbermann and the like any day.)

Although we may not agree on a lot of things, it's been a good discussion. I just encourage you to actually watch Fox for a while and then make your judgment. There is no question that their commentary comes mostly from the right, but at least it is labeled as commentary and you know what to expect as opposed to having "bias by omission" or having it written between the lines.

Since I know you like the printed word (albeit commentary with reference to factual data in this case), here is one last link for you: http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html

Finally, I think I have "about beat this horse to death", so once again... best wishes to you. Feel free to reply, but I'm "over and out" for now... perhaps someone else will engage if you wish to continue. This is all just too much fun for me... time to get back to work. Thank you.

P.S. I'm with you on the commercials, but I thank God we have them... it means continued commerce and capitalism! I have to admit though... I enjoy blasting right through them with the DVR.

[Guest]

Glen Beck is our new Paul Revere of the 21st century, he is a American Patriot. Heed his words and stop the Progressive movement.........

[Guest]

djplong, I am just curious about your source(s) for a prior post listing the items Glenn Beck said or implied that were inaccurate or misleading. B.K.

I did a quick google search on "Glenn Beck lies" along with "errors" and got an incredible number of responses. Some of the more vague accusations I skipped because MediaMatters.Org went to the trouble of quoting exactly when Beck said something, sometimes using the exact transcript from Fox's news site. Yahoo Answers had a guy who posted several direct links. It was while looking at MediaMatters.Org link that I found the "Misinformer of the year 2009" 'award'.

Now some people say MediaMatters.Org is 'non-partisan' but I can't say that I found much in the way of criticism for the administration. I've found far more even-handedness on Politifact.org in that they'll tell you when Obama has broken a promise and they do a good job of explaining how and why they give the ratings they do. Ok, I'm still a fan of any place that invented the "Pants On Fire" rating :)

[Guest]

I did a quick google search on "Glenn Beck lies" along with "errors" and got an incredible number of responses. Some of the more vague accusations I skipped because MediaMatters.Org went to the trouble of quoting exactly when Beck said something, sometimes using the exact transcript from Fox's news site. Yahoo Answers had a guy who posted several direct links. It was while looking at MediaMatters.Org link that I found the "Misinformer of the year 2009" 'award'.

Now some people say MediaMatters.Org is 'non-partisan' but I can't say that I found much in the way of criticism for the administration. I've found far more even-handedness on Politifact.org in that they'll tell you when Obama has broken a promise and they do a good job of explaining how and why they give the ratings they do. Ok, I'm still a fan of any place that invented the "Pants On Fire" rating :)

Do you know that Politifact.org is sponsored by The St. Peterburg Times the most liberal newspaper in America? They use a lot of tricks when trying to pretend to be impartial. Just read their final conclusions when they are judging a Liberal vs a conservative.

[Guest]

Allen: I do, on rare occasions, catch Fox. There are times when I'm surfing around (I have Dish Network) and I go by the '200' neighborhood where the news is. I'm more disappointed in Fox guys like O'Reilly. I mean, I used to watch him but as the level of 'debate' got more and more juvenile - an example being the increased use of the word "pinhead" by Mr. O'Reilly - I just stopped. I can't watch MSNBC for long - and seeing Olberman is an instant threat to me spraining my thumb in trying to change the channel too quickly. CNN? Heck, I used to use Headline News as 'background noise' in the house. But that was many years ago. I tried tuning in recently.. WHAT has HAPPENED to these people?????

For Beck... It's hard for me to decide if it's all an act to get attention and ratings. After all, that's now Job #1 in "TV News" - ratings, By Any Means Necessary. I'm not fond of what's going on in D.C., either. But I don't see practical solutions being proposed. I hear a lot of "NO!" and when some bipartisanship comes up for a good idea... Well, look at the past couple of days and the news concerning the legislation that would have created a deficit review board. 7 Republicans sponsored the bill. As soon as Obama said "good idea", they were gone. They didn't even vote for the bill they sponsored. That tells me they're more interested in the power-politicking GAME than in serving the country. I'm sure Beck and I can agree on that.

About print media - yeah, I know that it slants anywhere from 70-85% liberal. Part of that, IMO, is becuase of the "If it bleeds, it leads" mentality that has been around a LONG time. But that's why I specifically seek out more conservative sources.

On Dan Rather - like I said, I was surprised to find myself saying what I said. But I've watched a few "Dan Rather Reports" on subjects like Afghanistan, black-market organ selling, truck driver training, etc. He's got time to present all sides of a story - which is refreshing when there are MORE than just two sides. I well know his history.

About Limbaugh. I used to listen to him every day on the way home from work. He *used* to be more articulate than anyone on radio. I'll give an example. He explained why he was against abortion. He didn't quote political talking points or Biblical scripture or anything like that. He said it was because he believed it was a continuing process of devaluing human life. He wasn't getting into the "at what point does life commence" argument, it was more of a philosophical objection. Now THAT, even though I disagreed, I could understand and respect. Cut to 15 years later and he now sounds like a guy who believes all his press clippings. ...though I still used his link to the IRS statistics that showed WHO pays MOST to ALL of the taxes in this country. When one has good numbers to back up one's opinion, it's usually A Good Thing.

...and, yeah, I zip through the commercials on my DVR. Of course, that means that the really good ones are all that more memorable when I actually see them :)

[Guest]

Do you know that Politifact.org is sponsored by The St. Peterburg Times the most liberal newspaper in America? They use a lot of tricks when trying to pretend to be impartial. Just read their final conclusions when they are judging a Liberal vs a conservative.

...and all this time I thought the NY Times was the most liberal paper in the country!

Sorry - when Democrats get criticized alongside Republicans, and Republicans get defended as well, that tells me the people in charge of the content are being quite fair. That may not always be the case in the future, but it seems that way now.

[Guest]

Just doing a quick Google search I found this website called Discover the Networks . It's obvious that it is conservative. But they don't seem to hide their affiliations and funding like, in my opinion, Media Matters seems to do. Anyway, for what it is worth:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150

Also, I have done a little research on some of the points you posted about Beck. If you are interested I can post them here. Thanks for your time. B.K.

[Guest]

...and all this time I thought the NY Times was the most liberal paper in the country!

Sorry - when Democrats get criticized alongside Republicans, and Republicans get defended as well, that tells me the people in charge of the content are being quite fair. That may not always be the case in the future, but it seems that way now.

The New York Times is the biggest newspaper supporter of the Democrat party.
It is the worst newspaper in America. If you want a newspaper to tell the truth and print all of the news then do not read the NYT.

The St. Pete/politoco.org is the most biased in America.

[Guest]

Cashman, even if I took your word on the St. Pete paper at face value, I'd see that paper and raise you a NH Union Leader. I've never seen a paper SO biased on the right. Yes, I read it because they're pretty good on local coverage (Manchester is a dozen miles north of me, Nashua is a couple hundreds yards out my bedroom window).

The legendary publisher of the Union Leader, William Loeb (ok, LOCAL legend) was all in favor of the late Governor Mel Thompson's desire for the NH National Guard to be equipped with nuclear weapons. I am NOT making this up. After he died, his wife Nackey took up the baton and, since her death, the Union Leader hasn't eased off much - at best maybe one could say they have mellowed a little.

It makes the left-leaning Boston Globe seem tame by comparison. To their credit, they were the first right-leaning news source, that I know of, to jump of former President Bush's bandwagon and started calling him on the carpet when the federal budget took off faster than a NASA rocket.

[Guest]

I just love the way that Glen Beck brings us together.

Yoda :a040:

[Guest]

I just love the way that Glen Beck brings us together.

Yoda :a040:

Yes, I love the way that the Boston Globe and New York Times dedicates so much of it's resources to give us startling news about Sarah Palin and does not trouble us at all with the sordid John Edwards scandal. So thoughtful.

[Guest]

Cashman, even if I took your word on the St. Pete paper at face value, I'd see that paper and raise you a NH Union Leader. I've never seen a paper SO biased on the right. Yes, I read it because they're pretty good on local coverage (Manchester is a dozen miles north of me, Nashua is a couple hundreds yards out my bedroom window).

The legendary publisher of the Union Leader, William Loeb (ok, LOCAL legend) was all in favor of the late Governor Mel Thompson's desire for the NH National Guard to be equipped with nuclear weapons. I am NOT making this up. After he died, his wife Nackey took up the baton and, since her death, the Union Leader hasn't eased off much - at best maybe one could say they have mellowed a little.

It makes the left-leaning Boston Globe seem tame by comparison. To their credit, they were the first right-leaning news source, that I know of, to jump of former President Bush's bandwagon and started calling him on the carpet when the federal budget took off faster than a NASA rocket.

What percent of the media is Liberal? When you find the answer you will see that we have an unfair media in the USA.