-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
The Saudi Prince, The Mosque And Fox News
September 1, 2010
The proposed construction of an Islamic center and mosque close to ground zero in New York City has inspired intense scrutiny from news outlets this month — and few have outstripped the Fox News Channel in their interest.
That's especially true on Fox's opinion-driven shows in the morning and evening hours. Familiar figures including Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham have repeatedly asked where the money for the center will come from.
Yet the parent company of Fox News shares a financial backer with the imam who is at the center of the firestorm. The second-largest holder of voting stock in News Corp. is Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, a nephew of the Saudi king. And through his philanthropies, Waleed has given generously to initiatives pursued by the imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf.
But that connection has not been spelled out by Fox to viewers. Fox's intense coverage of the Islamic center, combined with its lack of disclosure about the corporate connection to Waleed, has sparked scorn from some media critics and from liberals — including, repeatedly, from satirist Jon Stewart.
Former ABC News correspondent Robert Zelnick, who covered the Middle East, praised Fox News' straight reporters for their stories on what he said was a legitimate issue. But he said disclosure might have been warranted.
"I think in a circumstance where an apparent — or at least arguably apparent — conflict of interest is present, the better part of valor is to simply broadcast information about the person in question," Zelnick says.
On the morning show Fox & Friends, Fox News analyst Dan Senor referred to Waleed as "the guy who tried to give Rudy Giuliani $10 million after 9/11 that was sent back" and said "he funds radical madrassas all over the world."
Senor did not refer to Waleed by name, and his characterization was true as far as it went, though some Muslims would take exception to that characterization of the madrassas. But other people characterize Waleed more generously. Among those others is Rupert Murdoch, the controlling owner of Fox News' parent company, News Corp.
In a 2005 documentary about the prince, Murdoch called Waleed "very shrewd, very analytical, yet at the same time prepared to gamble — and to go against sort of the prevailing thoughts about markets."
Murdoch added, "He's very original in his thinking."
The prince had long been Murdoch's business partner in News Corp. — but that year he arranged a share swap in which he obtained more than 30 million voting shares.
Al-Jazeera anchor Riz Khan, formerly of the BBC and CNN International, wrote that documentary and a companion biography about Waleed. Khan tells NPR that despite the criticism from Senor, Waleed is friendly to Western interests and to Murdoch's.
"Rupert Murdoch said, 'Well, the thing about the prince is, he's there for you,' " Khan recalls. " ‘When you need the help, he is there. He will try and do his best to make things work.' "
Indeed, according to the latest filings with the SEC, Waleed now holds 7 percent of the voting stock in News Corp., more than any other person not named Rupert Murdoch, and he has repeatedly voted to support Murdoch's priorities. And News Corp. has invested in Waleed's own Middle Eastern media venture, called the Rotana Media group. Khan described sitting by the billionaire prince and the media baron as they strategized about billion-dollar deals and exchanged tips about fuel efficiency on their respective jets.
Khan says he asked Waleed about anger in some Arab circles about the rhetoric heard on Fox, and the prince replied this way:
"Look, I'm not there to direct the news policy, I'm there to invest in News Corp. — and hopefully they've got some sense to do news properly."
Officials at News Corp. and Fox News declined to comment for this story, while officials at the Kingdom Foundation, the prince's charity, did not reply to a request for comment.
Investigative reporter Neil Chenoweth of The Australian Financial Review has written extensively about corporate intrigue at News Corp. In an e-mail, he says Murdoch valued the prince for two reasons: His investment helped Murdoch hold some rival investors at bay, including Liberty Media CEO John Malone; and it helped him smooth the path for the expected succession of James Murdoch, his younger son.
But News Corp. is not the only big-name investment Waleed has made in the United States. He has helped rescue the American banking giant Citigroup twice and is one of its largest holders. He also has big stakes in rival media giants Time Warner and Disney. And his portfolio took a big hit when the U.S. stock markets tanked.
That exchange involving Fox's Senor was the only one this reporter could find on Fox News that made direct reference to the prince. But Senor did not name Waleed — nor was the prince mentioned in any of the speculation about the financing for that proposed Islamic center in Lower Manhattan.
Yet Waleed is hardly unknown to Fox. Anchor Neal Cavuto portrayed the prince as a savvy investor early this year during an extensive interview carried both on the newer Fox Business Network and on Fox News. On those programs, Cavuto disclosed the prince's stake in News Corp.
But the neoconservative Muslim commentator Stephen Schwartz argues that the seeming tension between the prince's investments and his charities provides evidence that he wants to keep one foot in Western business and political circles — and the other in radical Islamic camps.
"Al-Waleed bin Talal wants to be seen as a modernizer and a person who's open to various points of view," Schwartz, executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, tells NPR. "But it always comes back to the grievance paradigm."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=129584557
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
Gee, I don't know, maybe each married couple should have the freedom to decide and the means to determine how many pregnancies they want to go through and how many children they want to have.
You're really uneducated. Married couples already have the power to decide how many pregnancies they want to go through.
You don't get it, do you? Absent abortion or other murder options, men and women still have the power to decide.
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
You don't get it, do you? Keep BIG GOVERNMENT out of women's wombs.
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
Ben....that's fucking hilarious really....The british dude from U Mass makes a claim and says " the bulk of evidence is clearly on the other side" yet offers no documentation of his evidence. That's the funniest thing I've ever seen !!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're kidding me with this ............right? Only the liberal media deny they're slanted...but every poll shows the American people get it right. I mean think about it.....do you really think they're going to openly admit they allow thier ideologies to seep into news stories? Grow up man !! It is what it is . The slant ranges from subtle to gross. Please don't go down this road Ben...you'll look silly doing it.
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
onmyknees
Ben....that's fucking hilarious really....The british dude from U Mass makes a claim and says " the bulk of evidence is clearly on the other side" yet offers no documentation of his evidence. That's the funniest thing I've ever seen !!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're kidding me with this ............right? Only the liberal media deny they're slanted...but every poll shows the American people get it right. I mean think about it.....do you really think they're going to openly admit they allow thier ideologies to seep into news stories? Grow up man !! It is what it is . The slant ranges from subtle to gross. Please don't go down this road Ben...you'll look silly doing it.
The public is not getting it right, if they get thier news/entertainment from Glen Beck. That's the point of this thread.
Case in point, I heard Glen Beck say that if you belong to a church and they ever use the term "social justice", you should run away, because they are a front for a 'socialist' agenda, or such. But the Bible is full of terms, including directly from Jesus, that talk about compassion and mercy. The story of the "Good Samaritan", is one such example. Sure, an organization who wants a 'socialist agenda' could use the terms, but it does not follow that anyone, using the term 'justice', (or social justice), is really pushing socialism. So what Beck is really doing is poisoning the term 'justice', so that people can be turned off by the word. You and I could argue about which government policies are more or less 'just', and we'd both be right. The only question is, to what degree each of us are right. But once the terms like 'justice', and 'empirical truth', are thrown out, we have no common ground to communicate. Then you get people saying things like, liberals should live in a separate nation.
A key point I got from Ben's recent vid (post #205), was that during the Reagan adminstration, the doctrine of "fairness" was dropped. I remember that when a news story was aired, a person with a opposing viewpoint was often allowed to give a rebuttal at a later time.
Any research is partially influenced by the framer. But to discount infomation only because of the source is dangerous. Those who once said that the world was round, were considered to be the 'liberal media' at one time. Can you admit that they got that one right? These days, we are getting a deliberate attemp to run from the truth, from people like Beck, using that term. Often an more objective truth is reached, by being looked by two separate viewpoints.
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Faldur
From what I can see, this document is just an example of keeping people away from, understanding that there is a more objective truth. The news has a segment about a house fire. They show the flames, etc. Does that mean its not true, becasue the reporter believes, women have the right to choose?
This article is an example of basic 'brainwashing' technique. The underlying message is not to trust any information, unless 'I' say it is ok. What does popularity, have to do with, whether something is true or not? Lots of people thought that Hitler was ok, at first. A few did not. Were the fewer who did not, wrong because they disagreed with the majority? If the majority of people think Obama is a Muslim, does that make it true? What about membership of one church for twenty years? That large numbers people have moved beyond reason, into illogical conclusions, is proof that large amounts of being are being brainwashed, by 'studies' like these. Thanks for posting.
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
O'Reilly's shameful campaign
Nation sportswriter Dave Zirin reports on an ugly campaign led by hated Fox News blowhard Bill O'Reilly against the author of a study on military recruiters.
December 17, 2010
http://socialistworker.org/files/ima...PX00203_91.jpgBill O'Reilly
IN MY mind, when the Fox News star Bill O'Reilly decides to make you a target, it's a badge of honor. This is a man who politically is a proud Islamaphobe, declaring, "We have a Muslim problem, not a Muslim extremist problem." And personally? Anyone who likes to tell people how his "happy ending" masseuse thinks he's well endowed clearly has trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality.
That's why his latest attacks on University of Washington Assistant Professor Amy Hagopian tells far more about the twisted mind of O'Reilly than the serious study the professor authored.
Hagopian wrote an academic paper for the American Journal of Public Health making the case that military recruiters in high schools were in violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a threat to the public health of adolescents, and even suggesting military recruiting behaviors were akin to--as she put it--"predatory grooming." It's a serious, data-packed analysis of the way recruiters have manipulated information and targeted the most economically disadvantaged students to fill the ranks of those fighting and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The overarching thesis of the study is hardly shocking or groundbreaking. After all, we know that in 2005, the Army ordered its recruiters to "stand down" for a day of retraining because of habitual mendacity. We know the intense pressures on military recruiters to meet quotas has led to a series of high-profile ethical violations.
I know from my work at D.C.-area high schools that the recruitment booths aren't set up at elite institutions like St. Alban's or Georgetown Prep. They're at public high schools like Ballou and Bell. In other words, recruiters fish in places where young people have fewer options. Hagopian's academic study simply backed up what has been over the last five years a very public scandal. This is what I thought when I read her paper.
When O'Reilly read her paper...all right, let's stop there. I will contend there is no way Bill O'Reilly actually read her piece. None. He doesn't reckon with any of Hagopian's sobering data. He doesn't reckon with the suicide rates among troops, the effects of exposure to depleted uranium or any of the ways that the realities of war are fudged by recruiters to fill their quotas.
There is just O'Reilly doing his neo-McCarthyite best to chill free speech. All O'Reilly needed was Hagopian's use of the word "predatory" when describing recruiters. Next thing you know, he was hitting the airwaves attacking Hagopian for calling recruiters "child molesters."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THIS IS sick. Why this is where O'Reilly and his producers' minds go is honestly between them and their Internet browsers. But tragically, when he sends his shock troops into battle, they can damage a person's life.
Now, Amy Hagopian, for the unholy crime of conducting academic inquiry into a public scandal, has been harassed by O'Reilly's loyal listeners. They have sent threatening letters and e-mails to the school offices. They have made a series of profane phone calls to her colleagues. They have contacted her university and demanded that she should be fired for writing a peer-reviewed publication in the primary journal of public health in America.
Please take a moment and imagine if that was you. Imagine if you created a contribution to public discourse to provoke discussion and debate. Imagine if you were ready to defend your findings against others who would surely disagree. And then imagine if instead you found yourself a personal target for a reactionary media giant using his outsized pulpit to make your life a living hell.
That's not journalism, and it's not punditry. It's the actions of an obscene, indecent bully. If there is one object lesson I've learned about O'Reilly's character from these attacks, it's that he clearly despises women who tell sobering truths. I suppose he just wants them to administer happy endings.
First published at Huffington Post.
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ben
Ben...Please accept this Christmas Card in the spirit it was intended by the Cable News Network that has 300% more viewers than it's nearest competitor in all time slots between 7-11 pm. LOL
And btw..I wasn't even aware that the uber left mag "The Nation" had sportswriters. I know they don't have any readers, maybe they're covering sports now? Or maybe thier sportswriters are covering politics now? LOL
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
Ben , when you use media matters as a reference, you look just as stupid as FOX news and MSNBC . Its ok because your whole agenda just took the biggest loss in the last 70 years of congress. You can label racist this , and racist that , but ultamitley its REAL AMERICANS , black ones , white ones , purple ones that SAID NO TO YOUR PRESIDENT and his party ( and the counrty club republicans as well) at the poles where it matters . Not on a forum about GIRL COCK duder .
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Billy mays here
Ben , when you use media matters as a reference, you look just as stupid as FOX news and MSNBC . Its ok because your whole agenda just took the biggest loss in the last 70 years of congress. You can label racist this , and racist that , but ultamitley its REAL AMERICANS , black ones , white ones , purple ones that SAID NO TO YOUR PRESIDENT and his party ( and the counrty club republicans as well) at the poles where it matters . Not on a forum about GIRL COCK duder .
Ha! ha! ha! I'm not a fan of President Obama.... Nor was I a fan of President Bush. (I like Ron Paul. He's principled. You can disagree with him. But at least he's principled. He's very good on foreign policy, civil liberties and on the fruitless and pointless drug war.)
And - I - am - NOT - a - liberal. I don't like the Democratic Party. (Both parties represent and serve strictly business interests. And not the interests of the population. That's understood.
It's about money -- and money in politics. Obama received most of his campaign money from the financial sector. Thus he serves their interests.
A lot of corporations are inextricably tied to government. And it's great for them. Think: Halliburton. Because they don't have to compete in the so-called free market. Ya just get your money from the government. Think: Blackwater/Xe, too.)
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Billy mays here
Ben , when you use media matters as a reference, you look just as stupid as FOX news and MSNBC . Its ok because your whole agenda just took the biggest loss in the last 70 years of congress. You can label racist this , and racist that , but ultamitley its REAL AMERICANS , black ones , white ones , purple ones that SAID NO TO YOUR PRESIDENT and his party ( and the counrty club republicans as well) at the poles where it matters . Not on a forum about GIRL COCK duder .
Can you admit that there is now more hatred from Americans (US cititzens) towards other Americans than at any time since the civil war? I tie this hatred, to professional hate mongerers such as Beck. The party winning the presidential election has lost seats in the mid term elections almost everytime in the past 40? years. The public is being brainwashed being thrown terms like "socialism" without even discussing the merits or complexities of a particular situation. "Socialism" is a branded word, that has been invested with negative meanings for 50+ years. Simply using that word, tends to stop public discourse, and goes directly the embedded negative meanings of the past. Americans are no longer thinking, but reacting to code terms. So you think you can invalidate any information from MSNBC, because of its so called 'liberal' bias. As if they could never be right. Were talking never. It's people like Beck, who have worked hard to make people immune to empirical evidence. Another word for that is ignorance.
I definitely did not like Bush and would have voted for any Democratic candidate. I really respect lots of Ron Pauls view. However, I dont agree with his views that 'small government' is a solution. This is because I see corporations becoming bigger and more powerful than ever. And I feel that government's responsibility is to the people, so that is our main hope of balancing the rule of money.
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
Well these Americans can join the club because most of the world has contempt for the US of A
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yodajazz
Can you admit that there is now more hatred from Americans (US cititzens) towards other Americans than at any time since the civil war? I tie this hatred, to professional hate mongerers such as Beck. The party winning the presidential election has lost seats in the mid term elections almost everytime in the past 40? years. The public is being brainwashed being thrown terms like "socialism" without even discussing the merits or complexities of a particular situation. "Socialism" is a branded word, that has been invested with negative meanings for 50+ years. Simply using that word, tends to stop public discourse, and goes directly the embedded negative meanings of the past. Americans are no longer thinking, but reacting to code terms. So you think you can invalidate any information from MSNBC, because of its so called 'liberal' bias. As if they could never be right. Were talking never. It's people like Beck, who have worked hard to make people immune to empirical evidence. Another word for that is ignorance.
I definitely did not like Bush and would have voted for any Democratic candidate. I really respect lots of Ron Pauls view. However, I dont agree with his views that 'small government' is a solution. This is because I see corporations becoming bigger and more powerful than ever. And I feel that government's responsibility is to the people, so that is our main hope of balancing the rule of money.
yodajazz, I agree with you: "... that 'small government' is a solution." As Noam Chomsky has stated: we, actually, need big government to protect us (or provide some protection) against these corporate behemoths. (And if one goes back a hundred years, well, it was actually conservatives who railed against corporations and concentrated private capital. Because if you have concentrated private capital, well, you will not have a democracy. Traditional conservatism is about being against centralized authority whether it be government or large corporations.)
When Tea Party members rail against government they aren't thinking about what's two steps behind government: big and powerful corporations. And people do have some say when it comes to government. People can influence government.
You can't influence a private corporation. They're non democratic institutions. They're top-down institutions. Power comes from above. The decision-making process is top-down. (Even shareholders don't have a say on the day-to-day decisions.) However, there's one good aspect to corporate structures: they don't tolerate corruption.
Corporations, overall, should reflect the interests of the shareholders and the workers and the stakeholders. Meaning: the community.
Corporations don't take into account externalities. (Even Milton Friedman said this is a big problem.)
An externality is the effect of a transaction between two individuals on a third party who hasn't consented to the carrying out of that transaction. Take, say, the buying of a car. The buyer and seller are looking to get the best deal possible. What they don't take into account is the effect on other people. Pollution. Congestion. Higher gas prices.
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yodajazz
Can you admit that there is now more hatred from Americans (US cititzens) towards other Americans than at any time since the civil war? I tie this hatred, to professional hate mongerers such as Beck. The party winning the presidential election has lost seats in the mid term elections almost everytime in the past 40? years. The public is being brainwashed being thrown terms like "socialism" without even discussing the merits or complexities of a particular situation. "Socialism" is a branded word, that has been invested with negative meanings for 50+ years. Simply using that word, tends to stop public discourse, and goes directly the embedded negative meanings of the past. Americans are no longer thinking, but reacting to code terms. So you think you can invalidate any information from MSNBC, because of its so called 'liberal' bias. As if they could never be right. Were talking never. It's people like Beck, who have worked hard to make people immune to empirical evidence. Another word for that is ignorance.
I definitely did not like Bush and would have voted for any Democratic candidate. I really respect lots of Ron Pauls view. However, I dont agree with his views that 'small government' is a solution. This is because I see corporations becoming bigger and more powerful than ever. And I feel that government's responsibility is to the people, so that is our main hope of balancing the rule of money.
I would agree that many Americans are angry that at any time I can recall. I don't think hate is a world I'd use. You're a smart guy Yodajazz, so you must know this goes much deeper than Beck. He gets a million viewers a night. The latest census tell us there's 308 million folks here in the US, so something else is at play here. I won't defend Beck...it's not my deal, but if he's so hateful....why was his rally so absolutely peaceful ? Surely one or two of the half million people would not be able to control themselves and there would be the press to chronicle it...but it never happened.
If you want to be honest....you need to look in the mirror as an Obama supporter to find some of the source of that anger. He's done as much to enflame passions as any president in modern history. On this I am as certain as death and taxes....Bush for all his faults( and he had many) NEVER dismissed or disrespected his foes. He continues that today. Obama engages in the devisive, back handed slights at every chance he gets. If you'd like me too...I'd be more than happy to chronicle them if we have enough space on this forum. His comments about clinging to guns and religion and conservatives as the enemy and getting in the back bus are not helpful. I'll tell you something else, if you're looking to truly scrape the surface and find the source of the anger...it's the constant bashing of the Tea Party's as racist. Believe me when I tell you this....the constant narrative spun by the left to disarm the efficacy of the Tea Party's and use race as the club has damaged this country immeasurably. They should be hung for the damage they've created. I'm certain you don't agree with the Tea Party premise, that's fine...but let's say a political grass roots movement starts and you begin to associate yourself with it. They seem to be saying and feeling what you believe. You begin to assemble, and organize. You are clumsy at first as you're not professional organizers. Over many months, your movement has grown in size and focus. You have never felt better about your country, or the power you as a singular American has to change the process. Then one day you wake up, and a seemingly coordinated effort from prominent liberal politicians, liberal columnists and pundits, The Speaker of the House, The NAACP, most major op-ed pages in most major cities, The President and his staff, and the 3 major networks as well as most cable entities are calling you racists...... a term once held for only the most despicable amongst us. Even the rhetorical question , when asked suggests an evil intent. For example ...Katie Couric is too smart to call The Tea Parties racists, so she poses the question... I has the intended effect. Do you think just maybe that poured 100 octane fuel on a simmering fire? Call them ill informed, or foolish, or without substance, but calling them racist....?? them's fightin' words. It was a calculated campaign by the liberals. It may have worked to preserve some democtatic seats, but it wounded the nation deeply. Any dirty trick the Conservatives can muster, pales in comparision to dividing the country on race. That's why this anger runs so deep.
There is a newly elected Congressman from Florida. His name is Col. West, an African American conservative. Keep an eye on him. The Tea Party would follow this guy to the gates of hell, and he's as black as coal. Race has nothing to do with it.
Now then onto your question of Socialist....I think it would have been more palatable and intellectually honest to preface it with Democratic. Obama is a Democratic Socialist. I don't know why that offends some. That's exactly what he is....A European style Socialist. Not the same as Lenin and Marx, of course...but there's just no denying his policies are more politically tied to France and other European social democracies, than any President in my lifetime. Of course some wanted the electorate to subliminally associate Socialist with Communist, and they were wrong for doing that....Even the "Progressive" Magazine urges liberals to stop running from the term Democratic Socialist. Social Democrats until recently were major political forces in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Spain, France, Germany, and most other nations. There's nothing derogatory about the label whatsoever. Goggle it...read the party platform, and then tell me that's not precisely what Obama believes. Socialist ? NO ...Democratic Socialist? YES.
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
Do Republicans Still Need Beck?
By Adam Serwer
James Downie writes about Glenn Beck's descent into ever more elaborate conspiracy theories and lower ratings:Just six months later, however, Beck seems to have traveled somewhere else entirely. His ratings and reputation are in steep decline: His show has lost more than one million viewers over the course of the past year, falling from an average of 2.9 million in January 2010 to 1.8 million in January 2011. He now ranks fifth among Fox’s six weekday talk hosts, trailing lesser-known personalities like Shepard Smith and Bret Baier. Beck’s three-hour radio show has been dropped in several major cities, including New York and Philadelphia, and has seen a ratings decline in most other markets. “It’s hard to gain a million viewers,” says Eric Boehlert, who follows Beck’s shows for the liberal media watchdog group Media Matters, “but it’s really hard to lose a million viewers.” And Beck’s fall contrasts with the fortunes of other Fox News hosts, like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, whose TV ratings stayed solid throughout 2010.
Downie suggests that this is because Beck's conspiracies have gotten more baroque and apocalyptic. I'm not so sure -- but I think the answer may be in this Pew poll Ben Smith flagged yesterday showing that the number of people "angry at the federal government" has declined by 9 percent. According to Pew, "much of the decline" comes from "Republicans and Tea Party supporters." Republicans have calmed down, and Beck has stayed high-strung.
The whole Republican narrative is based on the idea that conservatives are the "real Americans" and that liberals and Democrats are illegitimate democratic actors who only gain power through illicit means. Beck and his chalkboard met the need conservatives had to persuade themselves of this in the aftermath of political losses in 2006 and particularly 2008. Republicans, having regained control of the House and excised the existential crisis caused by losing the presidential election, feel like things are "getting back to normal." So they simply don't have the same appetite for the kind of cathartic insanity Beck provides. It's not really that Beck has really changed; it's that Republicans don't really need him anymore.
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
I don't the folks at Fox are going to get too excited about that. Last Friday he ranked 4th on the night, and for goodness sakes the guy is on at 5pm. His total audience Friday was more than his 5 other competitors combined. I think thats a pretty safe bet. Feel free to check for yourself.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...h-4-2011/84867
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...h-3-2011/84673
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Faldur
Agree...I never was a huge Beck guy, I can take him in small doses and he certainly does his research...I just can't take the deep physiological conspiracy theories on a nightly basis. He does draw some interesting dotted line conclusions, and he and he alone was responsible for Van Jones taking a powder. Hell...he's a top selling author, has a popular web site, well listened to radio program, so maybe he's set to blow off the TV gig.
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
It's really kind of funny, if Beck is in trouble with his viewership, where is Chris Matthews with 33% of Beck's viewers. I think Chris might be the one polishing up his resume.
-
Re: Glen Beck is REAAAALLY trying it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Faldur
It's really kind of funny, if Beck is in trouble with his viewership, where is Chris Matthews with 33% of Beck's viewers. I think Chris might be the one polishing up his resume.
That is pretty funny. Yea "Tingles" seems to have seems to have mistakenly collided with reality lately except for last night when he played a clip of Newt making a speech. Newt was doing what every person I've ever seen do when public speaking...his hands were moving. Tingles felt it was some biblical message ( Christ like) to the Evangelists he was speaking to. This guy is really certifiable !! LMAO
