Glenn Beck's Fox show dropped

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer


http://i.imgur.com/vgcgG.jpg

NEW YORK – Glenn Beck's talk show is being dropped by the Fox News Channel after sinking in the ratings and suffering financially due to an advertiser boycott.

Fox and Beck's company, Mercury Radio Arts, said Wednesday they will stay in business creating other projects for Fox television and digital, starting with some documentaries Beck is preparing.

Beck was a quick burn on Fox News Channel. Almost immediately after joining the network in January 2009, he doubled the ratings at his afternoon time slot. Fans found his conservative populism entertaining, while Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert described Beck's "crank up the crazy and rip off the knob" moments.

He was popular with Tea Party activists and drew thousands of people to the National Mall in Washington last August for a "restoring honor" rally.

Yet some of his statements were getting him in trouble, and critics appealed to advertisers to boycott his show last summer after Beck said President Barack Obama had "a deep-seated hatred for white people."

Beck said that he went to Roger Ailes, Fox News chairman and CEO, in January to discuss ways they could continue to work together without the daily show.

"Half of the headlines say he's been cancelled," Ailes said. "The other half say he quit. We're pretty happy with both of them."

Beck said he noted on his show Tuesday that "how many times can I tell the (George) Soros story," referring the liberal donor that Beck has made a target of attacks.

"We felt Glenn brought additional information, a unique perspective, a certain amount of passion and insight to the channel and he did," Ailes said. "But that story of what's going on and why America is in trouble today, I think he told that story as well as could be told. Whether you can just keep telling that story or not ... we're not so sure."

More than 400 Fox advertisers told the company they did not want their commercials on Beck's show. Beck's advertisers were dominated by financial services firms, many touting gold as an investment.

Ailes dismissed the financial impact of the boycott but expressed some frustration with it.

"Advertisers who get weak-kneed because some idiot on a blog site writes to them and says we need to stifle speech, I get a little frustrated by that," he said.

One of Beck's most prominent critics — David Brock, founder of the liberal watchdog Media Matters for America — said that "the only surprise is that it took Fox News months to reach this decision."

"Fox News Channel clearly understands that Beck's increasingly erratic behavior is a liability to their ratings and their bottom line, and we are glad to see them take this action," said James Rucker, executive director of ColorofChange.org, which organized the advertiser boycott.

Beck was a lightning rod for other critics, as well. The Jewish Funds for Justice organized a petition drive last fall to get Beck fired for what it called his misuse of Nazis and the Holocaust phrases against political opponents.

Viewers had begun turning away. Beck's 5 p.m. ET show averaged 2.7 million viewers during the first three months of 2010, and was at just under 2 million for the same period this year, the Nielsen Co. said. His decline was sharper among younger viewers sought by advertisers.

Increasingly, the show began to be dominated by Beck standing in front of a chalk board giving his theories about the world's troubles.

However, Beck has built a powerful brand for himself through a daily radio show, best-selling books and personal appearances. Mercury Radio Arts is expanding and a key Fox executive, Joel Cheatwood, is joining the company later this month.

Beck's company created and operates a news and opinion website, TheBlaze.com. For $9.95 a month, he offers fans access to "Insider Extreme," a website that beams documentaries, Beck personal appearances and a video simulcast of Beck's daily radio show, with an extra hour featuring Beck cohorts.

Beck said ratings for his television show were not an issue, noting that "we have buried the competition in every sense."

"I have learned more in the last two years than I have learned in any two-year period in my life, maybe any 10-year period in my life," he said.

Ailes emphasized that Fox and Beck will continue to work together.

"We like each other," he said in a dual interview with Beck. "We're not drawing pictures of each other on the walls, having staff fights and stealing each other's food out of the refrigerator or any of that stuff."

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I used to like listening to Glenn Beck back in the day (I still watch him from time to time, and he occasionally still does some good shows)....but dude has really gone off the deep end in the last year or so.

[Southern Belle]

Yeah, he's gotten out of control and way too negative IMO

[DemonGeminiX]

I really haven't liked him at all for years. But to be completely honestly, I saw some of his older broadcasts back before he turned into an insane fearmonger and he used to be ok. I really think he switched it up for ratings and notoriety. Controversy sells in this age and he rode the wave.

[Godfather]

All I've seen is his "worst of" on Youtube :lol: Based on that alone I can't believe people tuned in ever given that it seemed totally off the wall and like brutally irresponsible television for a news station ... but my experience with him and that station is limited to only the most insane stuff that makes a splash on the internet so I can't really have any extreme opinions one way or the other *shrug*

[FBD]

To be fair, "transitioning away from the show as his main 5pm thing" and "show was dropped" are two entirely different statements...it looks like it was relatively mutual.


All I've seen is his "worst of" on Youtube :lol: Based on that alone I can't believe people tuned in ever given that it seemed totally off the wall and like brutally irresponsible television for a news station ... but my experience with him and that station is limited to only the most insane stuff that makes a splash on the internet so I can't really have any extreme opinions one way or the other *shrug*

Honestly it seems like that's what most people have seen, his chalkboard connecting Soros and everything he funds (and since they all support each other, its looking similar to the 6 degrees of separation of Kevin Bacon or something.) Of course, anybody that learns left isnt going to like him calling it as he sees it and trumpeting American values, since leftists have worked ever so hard to get us away from those. I caught the show here and there when picking my son up timed it right for the show to be on when I was arriving with him.

When the show was about patriotic history, showing bits of history that were relatively suppressed, shit like that, his show was great. The Soros stuff was getting old - but then again, if he's right about all that, well, I hope people have got some resources in reserve. The story he painted was pretty goddam scary and it all led towards a diminished America, destroy capitalism and the American economy so that something else could be introduced in the resultant chaos. You dont think Soros would love to do to America what he did to the british sterling (or the other euro countries where he had a big hand in f*kn their currency?) Would Van Jones and Frances Piven be jumping for joy if that happened? I think that's a safe bet, FFP's wanted this place communist since the 60s. People like that have been working at "reeducating" others for a long time, its where political correctness came from, its why colleges pass out diluted pieces of paper out for $100k these days, hell, its why katie couric gets the highest journalism award for a half baked hit piece. Its all advancing an ideology we thought we killed a couple times over but just keeps coming back like a cockroach infestation.

All I gotta say is, look at the groups who are openly communist, openly socialist here in america, and look who they support.


Like Beck said, "I sincerely hope I'm wrong on this stuff...


But this is where the evidence led me."


:idk:

[Deepsepia]

Like Beck said, "I sincerely hope I'm wrong on this stuff...


But this is where the evidence led me."

Entirely insincere and the evidence didn't "lead him" anywhere. He made up stuff and tortured vague associations into blatant false and inflammatory nonsense. He made assertions of fact that were easily shown to be wrong.

You're six degrees of separation from the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and the last Doge of Venice-- so what? So is everyone. Your third cousin's grand-dad once pumped gas for Lee Harvey Oswald.

Beck delivered X-Files political commentary they don't want you to know this secret, but i'll tell you . . . the amazing thing was how poorly researched his stuff was. Given the money that flowed through his show, he could have hired decent researchers-- god knows, we need good investigational reporting about stuff like the financial crisis.

Didja notice that interest in Beck began to fall once the R's won the November election?

When the R's were shutout, they were happy to have a whack job throwing bombs at the Dems. But now that they're more than a party of opposition, that act interferes with their agenda, which is winning the senate and White House in 2012.

Beck, in a clumsy response, reacted by becoming more hostile and conspiratorial, and also crossed over into John Birch society territory. His rise and fall looks very much like Joe McCarthy's and the time frame is very similar too.

I never decided whether he was shrewd, or just lucky, or a combination of both. If you compare his kookiness to Wlex Jones "Prison Planet" -- what made Beck succeed at so much greater a level than Jones?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Entirely insincere and the evidence didn't "lead him" anywhere. He made up stuff and tortured vague associations into blatant false and inflammatory nonsense. He made assertions of fact that were easily shown to be wrong.

:thumbsup:

Like I said, I used to like Beck, he had some good shows once upon a time. Then the last 12 to 18 months he has just completely dove off the deep end.

I like this opinion piece from the Post about Beck and his show...it pretty much sums it up nicely.


Why Glenn Beck lost it
By Dana Milbank, The Washington Post


On Friday, the unemployment rate dropped to 8.8 percent, as businesses added jobs for the 13th straight month.

On Wednesday, Fox News announced that it was ending Glenn Beck’s daily cable-TV show.

These are not unrelated events.

When Beck’s show made its debut on Fox News Channel in January 2009, the nation was in the throes of an economic collapse the likes of which had not been seen since the 1930s. Beck’s angry broadcasts about the nation’s imminent doom perfectly rode the wave of fear that had washed across the nation, and the relatively unknown entertainer suddenly had 3 million viewers a night — and tens of thousands answering his call to rally at the Lincoln Memorial.

But as the recession began to ease, Beck’s apocalyptic forecasts and ominous conspiracies became less persuasive, and his audience began to drift away. Beck responded with a doubling-down that ultimately brought about his demise on Fox.

He pushed further into dark conspiracies, urging his viewers to hoard food in their homes and to buy freeze-dried meals for sustenance when civilization breaks down. He spun a conspiracy theory in which the American left was in cahoots with an emerging caliphate in the Middle East. And, most ominously, he began to traffic regularly in anti-Semitic themes.

This vile turn for Beck reached its logical extreme two weeks ago, when he devoted his entire show to a conspiracy theory about various bankers, including the Rothschilds, to create the Federal Reserve. To make this case, Beck hosted the conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin, who has publicly argued that the anti-Semitic tract “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” “accurately describes much of what is happening in our world today.”

Griffin’s Web site dabbles in a variety of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including his view that “present-day political Zionists are promoting the New World Order.”

A month earlier, Beck, on his radio program, had described Reform rabbis as “generally political in nature,” adding: “It’s almost like Islam, radicalized Islam in a way.”

A few months before that, he had attacked the Jewish billionaire George Soros, a Holocaust survivor, as a “puppet master” and read descriptions of him as an “unscrupulous profiteer” who “sucks the blood from people.” Beck falsely called Soros “a collaborator” with Nazis who “saw people into the gas chambers.”

Fox deserves credit for finally putting an end to this. Its joint statement with Beck’s production company, claiming that they will “work together to develop and produce a variety of television projects,” is almost certainly window-dressing; you can be confident Fox won’t have Beck reopening what his Fox News colleague Shepard Smith dubbed the “fear chamber.”

In banishing Beck, about whom I wrote a critical book last year, Fox has made an important distinction: It’s one thing to promote partisan journalism, but it’s entirely different to engage in race baiting and fringe conspiracy claims. Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity may have their excesses, but their mainstream conservatism is in an entirely different category from Beck.

Fox has rightly, if belatedly, declared that there is no place for Beck’s messages on its airwaves, and Beck will return to the fringes, where such ideas have always existed. Because his end-of-the-world themes will no longer be broadcast by a mainstream outlet, there will be less of a chance for him to inspire off-balance characters to violence.

There are, happily, signs that the influences that undermined Beck are doing the same to other purveyors of fear. The March Washington Post-ABC News poll found that Sarah Palin’s favorability rating among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents had dropped to 58 percent from 70 percent in October and 88 percent in 2008. Her negative ratings among Republicans are higher than those of other prospective Republican presidential candidates.

In another indication of abating anger, a CNN poll released last week found that the percentage of the public viewing the Tea Party unfavorably had increased to 47 percent, from 26 percent in January 2010. Thirty-two percent have a favorable view.

Beck, in losing his mass-media perch, is repeating the history of Father Charles Coughlin, the radio priest of the Great Depression. Economic hardship gave him an audience even greater than Beck’s, but as his calls to drive “the money changers from the temple” became more vitriolic, his broadcast sponsors dropped him. He gradually faded from relevance as his angry themes lost their hold on Americans and his anti-Semitism became more pronounced.

It is a sign of the nation’s health and resilience that Beck, after 27 months at Fox, is meeting a similar end.

[Deepsepia]

:thumbsup:

Like I said, I used to like Beck, he had some good shows once upon a time. Then the last 12 to 18 months he has just completely dove off the deep end.

I like this opinion piece from the Post about Beck and his show...it pretty much sums it up nicely.

I thought he started out as an interesting addition to Fox. He had a libertarian slant, and their "established" pundits tend to be more "old right" than libertarian. He was much more willing -- eager even-- to take on the Bush Administration than the rest of the Fox team.

I think his level of drama and outrage actually makes sense over the bailouts-- what happened in the fall of 2008 is something that was extraordinary, and coming in the waning days of the prior Administration, everyone "just sort of forgot about it".

I agree with the Post piece you posted. The part that it doesn't mention is that I think today the Republicans are really thinking hard about winning the White House, and Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are big minuses in that effort.

If they ditch the crazies, the Republicans could easily get a Mitch Daniels, a Mitt Romney or perhaps a Jon Huntsman elected.

The thing is, since Fox is staffed by the Republican party, they can tune their message for the political problem. 18 months ago, the Republican aim was "prevent Obama from doing anything" -- today the aim is "win the 2012 election"

To do that, they're going to have to pick up the voters in the middle, and Glen Beck doesn't help with that. Neither does Sarah Palin -- you'll be seeing less of her on Fox.

Expect to see more Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Mitch Daniels . . . midwestern "business conservatives" and fewer of the fringe characters.

[Joebob034]

I always hated this guy. There are times when I hear what he says and I know he is certifiably insane.

[FBD]

Since this is almost entirely about "Beck's crazy conclusions" and not about the actual good parts of his show...which of course are never in the clips...(he did a great piece on fredrick douglass last year, for example...)


So let me ask you guys something - you have no issues with George Soros funding groups that actively seek to truly fundamentally change things about the way this country operates?

Seemingly innocuous things like funding a movement to eliminate popular voting for judges and establish a "vote by judge's panel"? How about his events in the upcoming weeks that seek to "set about a new global financial order" (and those are soros' words) and whatever the other remake-media-again or something ridiculous is? The dude's got hideous, preposterous amounts of money, and he's seeking to push for things to change in a way he would like them to change, he doesnt give two shits about anyone but his vision for the world, all under the guise of a philanthropist. He funds a ton of organizations to use like minded idiots to carry it out, media matters and garbage like that. Bitch about the Koch brothers all you want but the money they utilize for supporting conservative causes is utterly chump change in comparison to the hundred and some odd ways Soros funnels his money around to accomplish his political aims - at least the Kochs do it openly! Soros goes through great pains to ensure his fingerprints arent on his plans.

From the man with a master's degree in crashing currencies, I dont trust the son of a bitch one bit, nor do I trust the useful idiots that are carrying all of this out with some rosy image of what "equality" means in their head. They dont get what made america great, although Soros does and he's simply trying to put a glass ceiling above everyone's head. Although surely not his own, of course ;)

Say what you want about Beck's conclusions sounding a little far fetched - but he also said over and over again do not believe me simply based on this, go and do your own research and come to your own conclusions. (I can just picture that verbiage coming from an Olbermann, Couric, Butch Maddow...:rolleyes: )

[Deepsepia]

So let me ask you guys something - you have no issues with George Soros funding groups that actively seek to truly fundamentally change things about the way this country operates?

I have issues with Beck's blatant lies, and the grotesque obscenity of accusing of Soros of assisting the Nazis, one of Beck's most despicable and ridiculous charges.

What Soros has done is admirable. Soros has funded democracy movements throughout Eastern Europe. The guys fighting for elections and free speech were often backed by Soros.

I support this-- if you ask me "what has gone right in the last 30 years?" -- I'd rank the transition of the the former East Block nations into democracies, many quite friendly to the United States, as a huge achievement. Its hard to think of anything else that's "gone as right" as this.

Soros-backed groups played a big part in this, and I think he's to be applauded for this.

In domestic politics, I support the decriminalization of marijuana-- a Soros initiative. I oppose our wars in the Middle East, as does Soros. Domestically, he opposed the Bush administration and supported Move On . . . what exactly do you find to be wrong with that? There's nothing secret about it, and nothing wrong with contributing to candidates and causes who reflect your preferred policies. Do you think that dissenting from Fox News = treason?

There's nothing "secret" or "New world order" about supporting democracy and opposing foreign wars, about seeking to decriminalize marijuana, and the despicable nonsense that Beck spouted was notable both for its logical inanity (what's wrong with supporting democracy?) and its venom. There are lots of folks who fund political candidates and causes I oppose . . . so what? George Soros may fund causes you oppose, so what? Is it your theory that only folks who fund what you approve of are legit?

Soros played no role in the financial crisis, and hasn't managed funds for years. You seem to have bought into Beck's vague and typically ignorant insinuations . . . somehow there's a web of money and the evil spider George Soros is pulling all the strings.

Its nonsense. Soros didn't make American banks lever themselves up 40 to 1. The financial crisis is as simple as this: if you buy assets with 40 to 1 leverage, and borrow most of the money to do so overnight, sooner or later when the assets decline even very slightly in value, the lenders will say "we want our money back" and you'll be broke. Soros played no part of that, and if you do research you'll find it.

In fact, you've already posted some time ago a good analysis of what happened, and Soros and conspiracies play no role at all. When you're trying to understand what happens in financial markets you'll do better with a Yale economic historian than a self-described "rodeo clown" who can't get basic facts right.



Sorta on topic, but an entirely different subject - deep, I'd like your input on this pdf regarding the financial and bank issues. Honestly, just curious what you think ;) This is a short Q&A with Yale economist Gary Gorton.

Of course, I'm interested in what other people think of this if they have the impetus to read it :D

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/crisisqa0210.pdf

[FBD]

LOL...of course I didnt expect you to actually respond to my post, but merely tangent convenient aspects and re-parrot your own blinders-on view.

Did I say everything Soros did was bad? Nope, skip that context I mentioned entirely, mention an instance of something he's done for good (nice try with moveon though, getting an organization together to bitch about Bush doesnt quite cut it) and nevermind that he purposefully had a hand in crashing the currencies of a few nations, nevermind the undermining of fundamental tenets of American government, those can be simply waved away and not addressed. And of course, toss in some extrapolations that both you and I know are utterly false (and Beck does too,) just to add a little sensationalism to it. I do SO love debating with someone that will only seize upon the weakest and most tangential aspects of your argument and ignores almost anything of substance, then acts as if he has no idea which are which! :roll: I know you're more intelligent than that, which is why dealing with such crap from you is doubly insulting.

Meanwhile, Soros says "ya know what, the US could absorb some more debt" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/04/11/soros_us_could_absorb_some_more_debt.html)....

...wait for it, get this...

...to get the economy going!!!


Yes, in our hugely financially solid position we have, what we really need is to assume some more debt and that's just going to rev the economy right up! :thumbsup: Way go go asshole! We went another trillion in the red and gained nothing thanks to Obama's handouts and giveaways, now you're encouraging we toss even more good money after bad! But hey, if you're trying to take down the dollar and usher in a new currency for the world to standardize, that's in your best interest.

[Deepsepia]

I do SO love debating with someone that will only seize upon the weakest and most tangential aspects of your argument and ignores almost anything of substance, then acts as if he has no idea which are which!

Beck's commentary is entirely composed of "weak argument", I do not "ignore substance" -- it just ain't there.

When you compare what Beck says to what you can document, you find that he is simply wrong, and that he promotes despicable people and ideas.

Most recently, he's been hosting G. Edward Griffin, who advertises his view that the anti-Semitic forgery "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" describes our world today.

Or he decides to compare Reform Jewish rabbis to Mullahs (note to moron-- you ever see a female mullah?)

His analysis of Soros is basically a bunch of shout outs to the Stormfront crowd. "Evil Jew pulling the strings on the world financial system" -- when you get right down to it, that's what he's saying, and it should be treated by thinking people as being the garbage that it is.

The Stormfront crowd know why Beck was cancelled . . .

http://picload.org/image/oawgdr/firefoxscreensna.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Beck's commentary is entirely composed of "weak argument", I do not "ignore substance" -- it just ain't there.

When you compare what Beck says to what you can document, you find that he is simply wrong, and that he promotes despicable people and ideas.

Most recently, he's been hosting G. Edward Griffin, who advertises his view that the anti-Semitic forgery "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" describes our world today.

Or he decides to compare Reform Jewish rabbis to Mullahs (note to moron-- you ever see a female mullah?)

His analysis of Soros is basically a bunch of shout outs to the Stormfront crowd. "Evil Jew pulling the strings on the world financial system" -- when you get right down to it, that's what he's saying, and it should be treated by thinking people as being the garbage that it is.

The Stormfront crowd know why Beck was cancelled . . .

http://picload.org/image/oawgdr/firefoxscreensna.jpg

Like I said, he went waaaaaaaaaaay off the deep end...


Another opinion piece from the Post from back in January (before he was fired from Fox obviously)


Glenn Beck vs. the rabbis
By Dana Milbank - The Washington Post


After MSNBC let go Keith Olbermann last week, Glenn Beck couldn't resist celebrating. "Keith Olbermann is the biggest pain in the ass in the world," he judged.

But Olbermann's departure really should give Beck pause: With political speech coming under new scrutiny, how much longer can Beck's brutal routine continue at Fox News?

The latest omen of Beck's end times came on Thursday -- Holocaust Remembrance Day -- when 400 rabbis representing all four branches of American Judaism took out an ad demanding that Beck be sanctioned for "monstrous" and "beyond repugnant" use of "anti-Semitic imagery" in going after Holocaust survivor George Soros.

A Fox News spokesman brushed off the complaint in the usual fashion, attributing it to a "Soros-backed left-wing political organization." But that's not going to fly: The statement's signatories included the chief executive of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism and his predecessor, the dean of the conservative Jewish Theological Seminary rabbinical school, and a number of orthodox rabbis.

Beck has outlasted past complaints over his race baiting, his violent words, and his conspiracy theories. He's not new to questionable talk about Jews (years ago he called Barbra Streisand a "big-nosed cross-eyed freak"), and for the past couple of years his Nazi accusations against opponents have come by the hundreds.

But in June, he promoted on air the work of a Nazi sympathizer, Elizabeth Dilling, who had referred, in writings Beck didn't mention, to Eisenhower as "Ike the kike" and Kennedy's New Frontier as the "Jew Frontier." A few days later, Beck referred to Soros's Jewish ancestry, accused him of currency manipulation and said "he's got disturbing hair in his nose."

On July 13, Beck told his Fox News viewers: "Jesus conquered death. He wasn't victimized. . . . If he was a victim, and this theology was true, then Jesus would have come back from the dead and made the Jews pay for what they did." (After complaints, Beck clarified that "the Romans, not the Jews, put Jesus to death.")

Then came Nov. 9, which -- by sheer coincidence, no doubt -- happens to be the anniversary of Kristallnacht, a precursor of the Holocaust. Beck chose that day to launch a three-night series attacking Soros as "the puppet master."

"The prime minister of Malaysia called Soros an 'unscrupulous profiteer,'" Beck reported. "In Thailand, he was branded the 'economic war criminal.' They also said that he sucks the blood from people."

Puppet master. Unscrupulous banker. Bloodsucker. These are hoary anti-Semitic stereotypes. The Malaysian leader's words cited by Beck came from remarks describing a Jewish conspiracy against Muslims.

And Beck wasn't done. He called Soros "a collaborator" with Nazis who "saw people into the gas chambers," and "a Jewish boy helping send the Jews to the death camps." In fact, Soros's father had hidden the boy from the Nazis by placing him with a Hungarian man assigned to record belongings of Jewish families that had fled.

"It is not appropriate to accuse a 14-year-old Jew hiding with a Christian family in Nazi-occupied Hungary of sending his people to death camps," the 400 rabbis wrote in their ad on Thursday.

Beck responded on his radio show by joking with his sidekicks that "attacks are coming out at me now that I'm anti-Semitic." Beck employed a variation of a defense he has used before: that he's not anti-Semitic because he's pro-Israel and is a fierce critic of Iran.

That's true, but irrelevant: Many conservative Christians support Israel out of a belief that it will help to bring about the Second Coming. Being pro-Israel and pro-Jew aren't the same.

Beck's warm thoughts about Israel, for example, don't excuse what he did two weeks ago on Fox News, when he identified nine men responsible for the "era of the big lie." He spoke of them as propagandists who saw themselves as an "intelligent minority" manipulating the masses. Of the nine men Beck attacked, eight were Jews. "A classic case of anti-Semitic dog-whistling," alleged Jeff Goldberg of the Atlantic.

Seventy-five years ago, Father Charles Coughlin, the celebrated "radio priest" of the Great Depression, lost his mass-media platform as he moved from veiled references to "driving the money changers from the temple" to overt anti-Semitism. Now, Beck clings to Fox News's support as evidence that he has not crossed this line.

"Could I put on three hours of television with nothing but lies and smear and keep my job against the most powerful man [Soros] and the most powerful groups in the world?" he asked one night.

It's a question Rupert Murdoch has to confront.

[Deepsepia]

Like I said, he went waaaaaaaaaaay off the deep end...


Another opinion piece from the Post from back in January (before he was fired from Fox obviously)

Yup. I thought he was much more clever than that. One of the things about the American Right wing is that you can go up to the line of racism/anti-semitism, but you can't go over it.

That's one of (the many) good things that William F. Buckley did for the conservative movement-- he took it away from the kooks, and in so doing made it electable. The difference between Goldwater getting routed and Reagan winning a landslide was making conservatism legitimate by getting rid of the fringe.

That's been a winning formula for the Republicans, and Beck either didn't seem to know, or didn't care . . . he also had a weird fascination with Jews and Nazis, never quite could figure it out. One of the strange things is that the people he obsessed over often were long gone -- Saul Alinsky is one guy, dead for 30 years, who matters way more to Beck than to anyone else.

[FBD]

Some weird fascination with jews and nazis, huh? I guess since you never watched his show, you'll take whatever some journalist writes up as fact then eh. Nevermind that a lot of it was pointing out ways propaganda was used - I'll bet lefties didnt like him pointing out that the Nazis's main PR guy was a huuuuge fan of Wilson's PR guy, for instance - you know, pointing out more history that certain folks dont want others to know about - but dont go and check for yourself! Some asshole who hates Beck who does a writeup of something he misinterpreted (or flew right over the head of, as the case may be on July 13th or something of the like) is good enough for you to retrieve your opinion from.

I thought you were a little more clever than that, but you surprise me time and again, I give you a little more credit than you deserve. Consistently. And you keep sullying my expectations of a halfway honest debater from the left. So quick and easy to wave away arguments you dont like, and then your own shoddy ones are built on 5 feet of concrete in your mind.


:lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Oh please :roll:

Dude, I watched his show daily and still watch it most days of the week (albeit now more for the train wreck that it has become rather than for the information he imparts) and if you think the guy hasn't gone off the deep end and you can't see the deep dark conspiracy hole he has fallen into, then you have been drinking too much kool-aid yourself.

[FBD]

:lol: boy, you guys make this impossible - that's okay, I'm getting used to having the actual context of what's being discussed mean one thing when I am replying and something else when you guys reply, then I get bashed for my context being different!

Fuckin' Awesome :thumbsup:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

:lol: boy, you guys make this impossible - that's okay, I'm getting used to having the actual context of what's being discussed mean one thing when I am replying and something else when you guys reply, then I get bashed for my context being different!

Fuckin' Awesome :thumbsup:

You're trying to be an apologist for everything on the show without even being able to admit that some of the stuff on his show was conspiratorial BS but we're taking you out of context....yeah, okay ;)

[FBD]

You're trying to be an apologist for everything on the show without even being able to admit that some of the stuff on his show was conspiratorial BS but we're taking you out of context....yeah, okay ;)

:lol: Go back and read, man. Was I trying to be an apologist for everything on the show? Not at all. Was I sticking up for the show's positive qualities, highlighting patriotic and lesser known history? Yup. Was I also annoyed by the presentation of the soros material? I already stated once or twice in this thread that I was, and I already stated that this focus is why the show 'got old.'

But go ahead and skip that stuff over :bye: (and make sure you dont ask the questions and actually look stuff up for yourself, a biased article is plenty for yas to call Beck simply biased...where's that hypocrisy smiley...)

[Deepsepia]

Bottom line on Beck: he pissed off the Fox News audience, and Fox News advertisers, and the Republican Party. Fox is certainly a happy home for all sorts of conservatives, but it's pretty clear that they 'd had enough of Beck's nonsense.

Slander isn't "patriotic", nor is getting your facts wrong.

You watch John Stossel and you see an articulate intelligent guy with a well researched piece that asks some really good questions. You watch Glen Beck and you get outright lies and slander, and the thing is-- he didn't even try to do better. You can attack the Federal Reserve with real data and do some digging -- a Bloomberg reporter got his firm to sue for the release of Federal Rserve documents.

That's worthwhile. Making up ridiculous lies that appeal to the worst instincts of an audience is not only bad journalism, it's bad citizenship.

[FBD]

Deep, you obviously cant tell the difference between "outright slanderous lies" and a presentation of "here is a bunch of evidence...here is where it led me...there are connections here, here, and here...here is what questions I am asking regarding this..."

Which is an issue entirely aside from the way Beck "left the cover open too long and his product got a little stale."

Of course, you dont bother taking the time to make any of these distinctions - you go to your favorite website and get your opinion, and you dont need to actually read up on what was said about whom - you just know Beck is a slanderous liar! :roll:

If you truly have no dog in the fight, or if things go the way you like, you're pretty straight up - but you twist and contort when things dont go that way, you're entirely willing to ignore or overlook evidence that doesnt support your conclusion. You've demonstrated this repeatedly.

You, sir, are intellectually dishonest - whenever it suits. Quite despicable, and pretty frickin hypocritical if you ask me.

[DemonGeminiX]

Keep it to the topic, gentlemen. Leave the personal attacks out.