If you intentionally do not watch Glen Beck, why?

Yoda

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?

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Yoda

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.....

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/art...cle/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/art...cle/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.

DVR every episode.

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.

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.

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...

Originally Posted by djplong

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

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.

djplong, was media matters your source? Just curious.

Originally Posted by djplong

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