why the left hates glen beck

[Foxfyre]

OMG.

You

have

got

to

be

kidding.

No I'm not kidding. Please point me to a thread started by a conservative specifically for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/90550-america-says-no-moore.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/89500-mikey-moore-capitalism-is-a-ponzi-scheme.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/86063-looks-like-olbermann-got-his-ass-kicked-again.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/70913-ann-coulter-rips-olbermann-a-new-one.html

Okay I checked each link. Other than calling Michael Moore a 'turd' on one of them, I did not see the conservative attempting to make the object of the thread a pile of crap but rather focused on what the person said. Convincingly showing how somebody is wrong, or that he or she is slipping in the ratings, or how he or she is committing character assassination is not committing character assassination. Focus on the words said, not the person, and meaningful discussion can take place.

In other words I can tell you that you are wrong or say wrong things or have done bad things without implying that you are a terrible person.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfrye: I appreciate your reasoned point of view. I agree with much of what I have read of your posts although admittedly I haven't seen that many. But if you will scroll back in this very thread you will find several links and documentation of Beck lies. I can't say whether there are more or less than typical of those in his profession - but a couple of those cited were obviously beyond hyperbole or gaps in fact-checking.

And as far as what appears to be a claim that those on the right do not attack political commentators on the left - well that's just absurd.

But I have appreciated what I've read of the majority of your posts and appreciate many of the insights you've shared.

Well thank you very much. I appreciate the kind words.

Just to keep the record straight, however, I have not and have never claimed that those on the right cannot be as inept or as hateful or inflammatory as those on the left. The only point I am arguing here is that those on the right are more likely to be able to articulate a reasoned argument for their point of view than those on the left are likely to do that and are probably less likely to engage in personal attacks than are those on the left. I would be ecstaitc, thrilled, impressed, overjoyed, and abundantly grateful if somebody would prove me wrong about that. And evenmoreso if most of us could refrain from personal defamation of those we discuss and/or each other. (I fully realize that some would have no fun at all if they didn't do that though.)

Glenn Beck is on the radio three hours a day five days a week and is on television one hour a day five days a week, he writes books, and, because he is controversial as well as extremely entertaining, he is probably one of the most popular invited guests to other programs during any given week.

Who among us has that much public exposure without getting at least something wrong? Is getting something wrong the same as an intentional lie? If so, are those on the left as critical of the many misstatements chronicled from Obama's public appearances? Biden's? Pelosi's? Reids? et al? Are they called viscious liars and smear merchants because they sometimes say something that turns out to be flat wrong? Would it be proper for those on the right to call them that? Or is there some give and take in allowing people to be human?

So take a statement, any statement, and by all means discredit it if you can. Show how it doesn't hold up. It is the inference that he is a 'lying bag of shit' or some such because he got something wrong that I can't tolerate. Nor can I tolerate an administration that would literally attempt or condone to run somebody off the air purely because he is critical of people in that administration.

When we arrive at the point that we presume to silence those with whom we disagree or don't like, we have handed all our freedoms over to powers that almost certainly will disappoint us and not have our best interests at heart.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The only point I am arguing here is that those on the right are more likely to be able to articulate a reasoned argument for their point of view than those on the left are likely to do that and are probably less likely to engage in personal attacks than are those on the left.

That has certainly not been my experience - my experience has been the opposite.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Who among us has that much public exposure without getting at least something wrong? Is getting something wrong the same as an intentional lie?

I agree. But when you claim a fact that is not a fact with the insistence, "I checked." that goes beyond. Had he really checked, he would have known what he planned to say was incorrect. But he insisted that he did check. That's beyond oversight. He also got called out on The View (yeah I know, but he did get nailed dead to rights) for just making up a story about one of their hosts.

Honest mistakes are understandable - but several of his go well beyond that.

But just because he has been caught in lies, doesn't mean he should be pulled from the airwaves - imho.

 

[chanel]

True nodog. But couldn't the same be said for the President? If Fox News (not Beck) is presenting the wrong facts, why doesn't the administration ask for a retraction? And if they don't oblige, you know damn well the other networks would jump on that.

Is it because the WH has their own "perspective" and their own version of the "truth"? Just sayin..

 

[nodoginnafight]

True nodog. But couldn't the same be said for the President? If Fox News (not Beck) is presenting the wrong facts, why doesn't the administration ask for a retraction? And if they don't oblige, you know damn well the other networks would jump on that.

Is it because the WH has their own "perspective" and their own version of the "truth"? Just sayin..

I'm not sure which line you are talking about when you say, "couldn't the same be said of the president?"

 

[Coyote]

No I'm not kidding. Please point me to a thread started by a conservative specifically for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/90550-america-says-no-moore.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/89500-mikey-moore-capitalism-is-a-ponzi-scheme.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/86063-looks-like-olbermann-got-his-ass-kicked-again.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/70913-ann-coulter-rips-olbermann-a-new-one.html

Okay I checked each link. Other than calling Michael Moore a 'turd' on one of them, I did not see the conservative attempting to make the object of the thread a pile of crap but rather focused on what the person said. Convincingly showing how somebody is wrong, or that he or she is slipping in the ratings, or how he or she is committing character assassination is not committing character assassination. Focus on the words said, not the person, and meaningful discussion can take place.

In other words I can tell you that you are wrong or say wrong things or have done bad things without implying that you are a terrible person.

WHAT?

I don't see how you can say that in lieu of some of these comments on those threads:

so olberman majored in "bullshit" huh? that's good to know,, Thanks to Ms. Coulter for writing the truth,, no maybe olberman will stop looking down his snotty nose at people..

He majored in it and studied it very carefully. No wonder I have to hold my nose when I see him on TV

He majored in it and studied it very carefully. No wonder I have to hold my nose when I see him on TV

Poor Mickey, nobody loves a rich fat hypocrite anymore

I keep hoping this 5000 lbs of pig shit will grab his chest and hit the floor dead !!!!

How is what is being said about Glenn Beck so much worse? Come on - it's the same sort of crap, it's just spewing from a different aisle.


and, by the way - much of the argument here HAS been about what he SAID.

 

[Foxfyre]

I didn't read all of any of those threads--mostly scanned the first page or two--but I agree the hateful remarks about Michael Moore, especially wishing bad things to happen to him, are unnecessary and indefensible. And had I been participating in those threads I would be as criticial of that kind of thing as I am of personal attacks on Glenn Beck or anybody else.

Please understand that I'm trying to be objective here.

Saying Glenn Beck is a hateful liar when he says Jones is a socialist would lose a debater serious points in a formal debate.

Saying that your opponent is incorrect in referring to Jones as a socialist as is shown by. . . . could be a good argument that would merit points.

Also one would have to admit to being a hypocrite if s/he thinks Beck (or anybody else) should be banned from the airways for saying wrong things unless s/he also thinks all others who say wrong things should be banned, that Obama should be impeached, that Reid and Pelosi must step down, etc.

My argument here is that there have been far more accusations of Beck personally than there have been arguments showing how he is wrong.

 

[saveliberty]

Is there a reason that I should care if the left hates Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, the nuclear family or farm animals? Can you tell a news story from an opinion show? Can you tell when a news outlet has a political point of view? Do you get your news from the Colbert Report? Sixty Minutes had news people as hosts for years, are they news? We used to have investigative reporters and called them watchdogs. Now some just say they don't "play nice".

 

[JakeStarkey]

... When is the last time you saw a length thread initiated by conservatives purely for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure? ...

OMG.

You

have

got

to

be

kidding.

No I'm not kidding. Please point me to a thread started by a conservative specifically for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure.

Foxfyre is a fool or malignant, no other conclusion is possible.

 

[Foxfyre]

OMG.

You

have

got

to

be

kidding.

No I'm not kidding. Please point me to a thread started by a conservative specifically for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure.

Foxfyre is a fool or malignant, no other conclusion is possible.

Some will no doubt agree with you.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Glenn Beck is a self promoter motivated by money. Much like the snake oil salesman of old.

He says things to increase ratings, He needs to be outlandish or the rating will not go up.
His show is closer to the Jerry Springer show than Meet the Press.

His rhetoric is driven by money and ratings not personal convictions.

He is laughing all the way to the bank. He is making fools of those who criticize him and those who follow him.

Those who criticize him help his ratings and those who follow him are just fools. Every snake oil salesman is looking for the suckers who will follow a Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck is helping his bank account but not the conservative movement.

Why should Beck 'help' the conservative movement? He's not a conservative.

Damn, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

I never said that Beck was a conservative, I said he is not helping the conservative movement.
From point blank range you shot and missed the barrel and the fish. You shoot like a girl.

Glen beck is an opportunist. He senses the hatred for Barack Obama. He feeds the hate crazed individuals exagerations and inuendo that they want to hear.

The majority of Obama detractors stay closer to the truth and have a more balanced approach to their criticism. That is not good enough for the hate crazed zealots. Glen Beck has overtaken Rush as the entertainer who feeds the crazed what they want to hear.

Glen is an opportunist not a conservative. But the vast majority of the American public associate him with the conservative movement unfortunately. This is not good for conservatives.

 

[Zona]

Didnt fox go to court and they won...they can legally lie since they are not real...I think I read something about that once. Will check when I get home.

I can't wait to read that. LOL.

FOX Wins court case: It's OK to lie to public
FOX Wins court case: It's OK to lie to public - GT Forums

Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling
Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling | Media Reform | CeaseSPIN.org

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

Why would their lawyers need to do this?

Seriously, please address this fox fans.

 

[Dr.House]

"Maddow and MSNBC lies." - AutoZona

 

[Foxfyre]

Didnt fox go to court and they won...they can legally lie since they are not real...I think I read something about that once. Will check when I get home.

I can't wait to read that. LOL.

FOX Wins court case: It's OK to lie to public
FOX Wins court case: It's OK to lie to public - GT Forums

Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling
Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling | Media Reform | CeaseSPIN.org

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

Why would their lawyers need to do this?

Seriously, please address this fox fans.

Now if you could produce a report on this subject by a source that is not intentionally anti-Fox News, we might actually get a fair and balanced view of what transpired if there was in fact such a court proceeding.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Now if you could produce a report on this subject by a source that is not intentionally anti-Fox News, we might actually get a fair and balanced view of what transpired if there was in fact such a court proceeding.

You mean Fox new DIDN'T apply their "Fair and Balanced" coverage to THIS event?

How shocking

 

[Zoom-boing]

Still bashing Beck? Keep up the good work!

Fox News has pulled off another dominant quarter, claiming the top 10 cable news programs in 3Q 2009 and growing against 3Q 2008, while CNN and MSNBC lost substantial portions of their election-boom audience.

Fox News averaged 2.25 million total viewers in prime time for the third quarter, up 2% over the previous year. That's more than CNN (946,000, down 30%) and MSNBC (788,000, down 10%) combined.

"The O'Reilly Factor" led all cable news programs with an average of 3.295 million total viewers for the quarter, up 12% over the previous year. "Hannity" (2.603 million, up 9%), "Glenn Beck" (2.403 million, up 89%), "On the Record with Greta van Susteren" (2.150 million, up 16%), and "Special Report with Bret Baier" (1.997 million, up 20%) rounded out the top five.

Read more at: Fox News Dominates 3Q 2009 Cable News Ratings

 

[California Girl]

No I'm not kidding. Please point me to a thread started by a conservative specifically for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure.

Foxfyre is a fool or malignant, no other conclusion is possible.

Some will no doubt agree with you.

Others will consider the souce and say 'it takes one to know one'.

 

[nodoginnafight]

OMG.

You

have

got

to

be

kidding.

No I'm not kidding. Please point me to a thread started by a conservative specifically for the purpose of trashing a liberal media figure.

Foxfyre is a fool or malignant, no other conclusion is possible.

I disagree with foxfrye early and often and I find the suggestion that the right doesn't trash or namecall the "liberal media" highly suspect - but I think the "fool or malignant" conclusion is not accurate and a little too mean-spirited.

 

[Coyote]

I didn't read all of any of those threads--mostly scanned the first page or two--but I agree the hateful remarks about Michael Moore, especially wishing bad things to happen to him, are unnecessary and indefensible. And had I been participating in those threads I would be as criticial of that kind of thing as I am of personal attacks on Glenn Beck or anybody else.

Please understand that I'm trying to be objective here.

So am I Foxfyre - but, I appreciate and respect (though don't always agree with) your point of view.

Saying Glenn Beck is a hateful liar when he says Jones is a socialist would lose a debater serious points in a formal debate.

Saying that your opponent is incorrect in referring to Jones as a socialist as is shown by. . . . could be a good argument that would merit points.

I actually agree with you here. However, when I called Beck a "liar" (I don't think I used the word "hateful") - I pointed out specific lies and how they were lies.

Also one would have to admit to being a hypocrite if s/he thinks Beck (or anybody else) should be banned from the airways for saying wrong things unless s/he also thinks all others who say wrong things should be banned, that Obama should be impeached, that Reid and Pelosi must step down, etc.

I actually agree - I don't think Beck should be banned - but I do think his lies should be challanged with truth and not simply excused.

My argument here is that there have been far more accusations of Beck personally than there have been arguments showing how he is wrong.

You may be right - I didn't really look closely at content and only replied to what did catch my attention. My argument though is that this is not by any means behavior limited to the left - the threads I gave as examples indicate that the right is just as bad. I think this has less to do with ideological leanings than it does from an inability to form an argument.

Or, maybe....it's just more fun to throw a pie