Month: March 2010

This Is A Big Fucking Deal?

Posted by on March 23, 2010 at 12:10 pm. 4 Comments :

President Obama signed the Senate health care bill into law this morning. While it is not the bill I would have written, it was still an historic moment that achieved something that 18 previous presidents failed to achieve.

But for much of the media, led by Fox News, the hot topic of the event was that VP Joe Biden whispered a congratulatory remark in the President’s ear:

“This is a big fucking deal.”

The President’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, reacted quickly to the growing hysteria in a tweet saying, “And yes Mr. Vice President, you’re right…” But this brewing scandal may yet overtake the frenzy surrounding the health care bill itself. I wonder if the President’s critics were just as incensed when then-VP Dick Cheney told Sen. Patrick Leahy to “Go fuck yourself.” right on the Senate floor?

And let’s not forget the time that Cheney pointed to a New York Times reporter at a campaign rally and whispered to George Bush “There’s Adam Clymer — major league asshole.” To which Bush responded, “Yeah, big time.”

My response to the media reaction to Biden’s remarks: This is a big fucking deal? Really?

Waterloo For Fox News?

Posted by on March 22, 2010 at 7:47 pm. 5 Comments :

Fourteen months. Fourteen long months of the most venal, histrionic, sensationalized, dishonest, and relentless crusade of disinformation, and what do they have to show for it?


[Purchase FreakShow stickers at Crass Commerce

Fox News has been the official campaign headquarters for opposition to health care reform. They dispatched their top personalities to headline rallies and protests. They consigned thousands of hours of valuable air time to anti-reform politicians and pundits. They converted their studios into Republican platforms for electioneering and fundraising. They adopted the Tea Party “movement” so thoroughly that they even rode along on its bus tours and branded its events as Fox enterprises.

And they lost.

Fox News is fond of reminding everyone of their ratings dominance. Although the cable news universe is comparatively tiny (Fox News has less than half the viewers of the lowest rated broadcast news program on CBS), Fox incessantly boasts that it is the leader in the space. But the fallout from the health care debate ought to demonstrate precisely how little that victory means in the macro world of politics. If the number one cable news network cannot sufficiently move public opinion to produce a legislative victory after fourteen months of persistent propaganda, it would be folly to regard them as if they were some formidable bastion of power or influence. Yet that is exactly how they are regarded by their patrons in the Republican Party (and many in the press).

Last July I wrote an article describing how “Fox News Is Killing The Republican Party”

Fox has corralled a stable of the most disreputable, unqualified, extremist, lunatics ever assembled, and is presenting them as experts, analysts, and leaders. These third-rate icons of idiocy are marketed by Fox like any other gag gift (i.e. pet rocks, plastic vomit, Sarah Palin, etc.). […]

By doubling down on crazy, Fox is driving the center of the Republican Party further down the rabid hole. They are reshaping the party into a more radicalized community of conspiracy nuts. So even as this helps Rupert Murdoch’s bottom line, it is making celebrities of political bottom-feeders. That can’t be good for the long-term prospects of the Republican Party. […]

This is a textbook example of how the extreme rises to the top. It is also fundamentally contrary to the interests of the Republican Party. The more the population at large associates Republican ideology with the agenda of Fox News, and the fringe operators residing there, the more the party will be perceived as out of touch, or even out of their minds.

See also: As Fox News Goes Up, The GOP Goes Down

Undoubtedly, Republicans will still embrace Fox News. They are not about to abandon the media megaphone that they believe is most in tune with their agenda. Consequently, they will continue to be hampered by the association with unhinged hyperbole like this:

Glenn Beck: This is the end of prosperity in America forever if this bill passes. This is the end of America as you know it.

Hannity: If we get nationalized health care, it’s over; this is socialism.

Neil Cavuto: National Healthcare: Breeding Ground For Terror?

In an inspired fit of illogic, Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard appeared on Fox News this morning to accuse Democrats of being partisan. His evidence was that 34 Democrats voted with Republicans against the health care care bill, but no Republicans voted with the Democrats in favor. Of course, that’s actually evidence that the Democrats were NOT partisan. They demonstrated some diversity in their views while Republicans all marched in lock-step against the bill. In further support of this inane argument, Hayes may have uttered the day’s funniest, and most truthful, commentary:

“If Bart Stupak was a Republican crazy he probably would’ve stuck with his original position.”

I couldn’t agree more. Sticking with his original position against the bill, would certainly have qualified Stupak as a Republican crazy. And it is generous of Hayes to admit that holding the Republican view is tantamount to being insane.

Where do you go after you’ve argued that Armageddon will be the result if your alarms are not heeded (as GOP chair Michael Steele did today) and your argument is rejected? Do you moderate your rhetoric and attempt to restore civility to the debate? Or do you accelerate into a frenzied panic and march a phalanx of livid lemmings over a cliff? My money is on the latter, so far as Fox News is concerned. They still consider it to be in their best interests to manufacture the sort of melodrama that captures television audiences.

Here it’s important to remember that the interests of a television network are worlds apart from those of a political party. So while Fox is happy to gin up the rancor in hopes of attracting more viewers stimulated by bloody conflicts, the GOP will only be further damaged by the partnership. However, unfortunately for them, they have nowhere else to go. Fox News, and a few other rightist authors and radio talkers, have become the de facto face of the Republican Party. This is a point made by conservative strategist David Frum in his discussion of health care winners and losers:

Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government.

Frum goes on to predict that the continuing, and escalating, hysteria will be a boon to right-wing media. I’m not sure that I agree with him on that point. Certainly the hardcore disciples of Beck and company will remain glued to their sets. But we might also see audiences recede out of frustration and/or fatigue. After pouring everything they had, including their sanity, into a winner-take-all death match and losing, it would surprise no one if a significant segment of the audience decided to take a vacation from the lunacy. If an effort as determined and prolonged as the one Fox just concluded could not prevail, then what would it take?

The good news from all of this is that, as abhorrent as Fox News is, it ought not to be viewed as a Goliath that will crush any opponent. They gave it their all and came up short. They huffed and they puffed, but the House stood strong (oh wait, that was a wolf). This is the clearest evidence yet that Rupert Murdoch’s empire is a paper Fox. However, that doesn’t mean that it should be neglected. It can still bark ferociously and the other members of the media pack continue to give Fox more credence than they deserve. And for these reasons we must remain vigilant and prepared to respond to the deceitful and unethical practices of this phony pseudo-news enterprise.

In the long term I continue to believe that an informed public will reject Fox’s brand of shallow and divisive disinformation. And looking back, the health care debate may one day be perceived as a turning point. It may be that this long, sordid affair will be the battle that turns the war for responsible journalism to favor reason and truth. It may be Fox News’ Waterloo.

[Update: 3/25/10] David Frum has been dismissed from his job at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. That’s what he gets for going rogue.

Jon Stewart: A Pawn Of The Insurance Lobby?

Posted by on March 19, 2010 at 5:38 pm. 4 Comments :

Last night on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart let down his guard and revealed that he is not the independent voice of reason that he would like everyone to believe. He is not the beacon of truth who slays the hypocrites and deceivers of the international media conspiracy. No, he is just another lackey of powerful corporate interests that want to take over your life. The shocking evidence of this followed a segment wherein he mocked Fox News’ CPO (Chief Paranoia Officer), Glenn Beck:

At the end of this innocuous (and hilarious) comedic skit, Stewart’s true colors were shown. As he announced that the program would be back after a commercial break, a graphic appeared on screen, accompanied by a voice-over, divulging that the Daily Show was brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

PROGRESSIVE Insurance? If you were not previously convinced of Stewart’s complicity in the clandestine plot to destroy America, well, you can no longer feign ignorance. This is an overt admission of his membership in a cabal that hates the principles that made this country great. It is a cabal that includes one-world government advocates and global industrialists like Warren Buffet and Rupert Murdoch. This covert coalition is so thoroughly ingrained in our culture that it brazenly plays both sides of the fence as it seduces and perverts our country, our neighbors, and even our children. If you think you are safe from this threat, think again. Even Glenn Beck has fallen into its web. Pay close attention to his own words:

Beck, 02/20/10: “Progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution. And it was designed to eat the Constitution.”

Do you hear that Jon Stewart? Progressivism was built from the ground up to be hungry for parchment made of – can you believe this? – HEMP! Progressivism just wants to get stoned by consuming the document that enumerates our great nation’s values as if it was a batch of Alice B. Stalin brownies. And after you’re shit-faced (that’s a medical term – look it up), the forces of evil are free to feed you any ludicrous notion that suits their whim, i.e. social justice:

Beck, 11/03/09: “Progressives think they know better than you and they want to control every aspect of your life. […] They like to call it “social justice” or fairness; I like to call it Marxism.”

And with that, Beck prevailed upon his disciples to abandon their corrupt churches for ministering to the poor. With regard to the progressive obsession for control, Stewart ridiculed this threat last night with obscene references to self-gratification. But this threat is all too real. Witness the remarks Beck made on the subject earlier this month:

Beck, 03/12/10: “So here is the deal, if you don’t have insurance and you need to take the government insurance, then the government has the right to regulate every aspect of your life.”

There you have it. When even Glenn Beck can declare publicly that the government has the right to rule over you like a slave master, then you know the risks are deadly serious. And notice how Beck wavers between a complaint that progressives want to regulate “every aspect of your life,” to an assertion that the government already has that right which he regards as entirely appropriate. This is all carefully designed to freak you out!

It is no accident that Jon Stewart is sponsored by Progressive Insurance. And it ought not to surprise you that Beck was once sponsored by GEICO (but they recently left him along with 100 other advertisers).

Note that GEICO, which is owned by billionaire and Illuminati lord Warren Buffet, was originally known as the “Government Employees Insurance Company.” That’s right! It was a state takeover of insurance by government union thugs. Today GEICO is supposedly engaged in fierce competition with Progressive. This may explain why Beck is so adamantly opposed to the Progressives who are sponsoring Stewart. Or maybe not. In the end they are all a part of the same congregation of villainy and much of the contentiousness may be staged to throw us off.

But whatever you do, don’t be mislead. They are coming after us. They are determined and relentless and, in addition to that, they just keep going and going (which reminds me, watch out for that cap and trade Energizer bill, and take your Avodart). And don’t let the veneer of comedy seduce you into submission. This is not about rodeo clowns and satirists. It is not about laughter and wackiness and goofballs who act like they’re crazy. Never forget these words from someone who knows what it means to be presumed to be nuts:

“I have been laughed to scorn as a prophet; for many a year my warnings and my prophecies were regarded as the illusions of a mind diseased […] I appear in the eyes of many bourgeois democrats as only a wild man.”
~ Glenn Beck Adolph Hitler, September 1936

A Disgusting New Low For Glenn Beck

Posted by on March 18, 2010 at 7:45 am. 8 Comments :

For someone who has called the President a racist, fantasized about choking Michael Moore to death, and described Hurricane Katrina victims as scumbags, it is hard to imagine how he could descend to even lower depths of depravity. But Glenn Beck, wouldn’t you know, would find a way to do it:

In this repulsive venture into psychoanalysis, Beck attempts to explain Barack Obama’s alleged radicalism. Of course, Beck has no training in psychology and no insight either. His lunatic ravings are not only entirely unconnected to Obama’s life and motivation, they are factually incorrect and utterly illogical. But then the mangling of facts and logic are Glenn Beck’s foremost qualities.

Beck starts out with an appeal to sympathy for poor Barack:

“Here’s the sad thing that I don’t think anybody will ever really say about Barack Obama, because it sounds mean and I don’t mean it to be mean. This is a truly sad, tragic story. But the only way to understand, first of all, all the people around him, his thinking. I don’t think he’s an evil man. I don’t think he’s trying to do evil things intentionally. He really does believe that Marxism is the way – is the answer. It is the future. He believes that.”

See? Beck doesn’t want to be mean. He doesn’t think Obama is evil on purpose. He just thinks that Obama is a Marxist. He still thinks that Obama is evil, but that it isn’t his fault. For months Beck has waxed idiotic about the supposed Marxists that are fluttering around the White House, but this is the first time that he has stated flatly that Obama is one of them. And Beck even has an explanation for why:

“From the moment he was born he had contact with socialists, communists, Marxists, radicals. His father abandoned him. Why? So he could go off to a Marxist school in New York. Then his father left the country to go try it out. How tragic. What kind of scar does that leave on a boy? Then his mother…I mean this is…you tell me. What scar is left when the mom leaves a son who’s been abandoned by his father for Marxism, leaves the son with his grandparents so she can pursue critical theory, which is Marxism. Both parents leave a boy for Marxism?”

Let’s set side aside the fact that Obama’s father left when he was two years old, hardly enough time to indoctrinate him in the ways of Marx, even for an exceptionally bright child like Barack. And set aside as well the fact that Obama’s father left to attend graduate school at Harvard, not some New York Marxist academy. And never mind the fact that Obama was left in his grandparents’ care because his mother was temporarily unable to care for him, not because her critical theory studies required her full attention. In short, set aside virtually everything Beck says.

Beck’s conclusion is that Obama was so traumatized by abandonment issues related to his parents’ absorption in Marxism that Obama, in retaliation, did what any child would under those circumstances — He became a Marxist. It makes perfect sense. What other choice did he have other than to adopt the philosophy of the thing that allegedly tore his family apart? It is a sad, tragic story, isn’t it?

Perhaps on tomorrow’s show Beck will tell his own sad, tragic story? The one where his mother abandoned him by killing herself. Obama’s mother went away for a while, but she came back and witnessed her son on an historic path to the presidency of the United States of America. For Beck’s mother only death was sufficient to separate her from her demon seed. What kind of scar does that leave on a boy? Well, in Beck’s case it left a scar that led to dropping out of school, to alcoholism, drug abuse, a failed marriage, a career as an AM radio shock jock, and fame as a hate-mongering conspiracy nut who contributes nothing to society but fear and division.

Contrast that with Obama who, while scarred, worked his way through school, graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law, dedicated himself to helping the disenfranchised, taught law at the University of Chicago, entered public service and politics, and went all the way to the White House. So sad – so tragic.

For Glenn Beck to pretend that he can psychoanalyze anyone is truly sad. And that he gets it so very wrong is tragic. But it’s much worse than that. Beck is capitalizing on the misfortune of the President’s childhood and twisting it into some morbid fantasy that suits his political agenda. He is attacking Obama’s parents who are not alive to defend themselves. He is smearing the President with baseless accusations. And he is couching it all in a syrupy faux-sympathy that is just a facade to mask his overt and deranged hostility.

For someone whose history and family life is such a heinous disaster to plunge sanctimoniously into a dishonest judgment of the President’s psyche and family is reprehensible and is truly a disgusting new low for Glenn Beck. But on the plus side, it is not likely to be the last low that Beck will achieve. His capacity to nauseate seemingly has no lower boundary.

Does Honesty Still Mean Anything To Fox News?

Posted by on March 17, 2010 at 3:36 pm. 4 Comments :

Fox News executives and defenders have been adamant that whatever bias exists at Fox, it is clearly delineated as opinion and is separate from what they regard as their hard news reporting. Never mind that even Fox admits that the majority or their schedule is opinionated and observers notice that much of that opinion seeps into their straight “news.” Further evidence of this seepage was apparent this morning on the Fox News web site. The image posted here was today’s featured story.

What this demonstrates is that it is getting harder to recognize the difference between Fox News and the Fox Nation (or for that matter, the Republican Party and the tea bagging, birther, secessionist, militias). The editorial pages of Fox are becoming indistinguishable from what they assert is news content. And while this has been obvious for some time on the air, it is expanding precipitously online.

The story referenced here is one that Fox is busily misrepresenting. They are portraying self-executing rules in Congress as illegal, unconstitutional, “Slaughterhouse” rules. But knowledgeable analysts are aware that these rules have been used many times by both parties. Norm Ornstein, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, had this to say on the subject:

“I can’t recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of ‘deem and pass.'”

The key falsehood that Fox and their Republican patrons are peddling is that there will not be a vote on health care. The truth is that there have already been votes in both houses of Congress and the bill passed by significant majorities (in the Senate by a super-majority). And there is still a vote to be held to invoke amendments to the bill that includes the self-executing language. So any member of Congress voting “aye” on this is transparently voting in favor of the health care bill. It is not clandestine in any respect, and it is not an absence of a vote.

Nevertheless, Fox, Republicans, and conservative pundits, are castigating this routine procedure as nothing short of treasonous. Rep. Mike Pence (the #3 Republican in the House), called the rule unconstitutional, but when it was pointed out to him that he had previously voted for such a rule at least three times, he said “Yeah, sure.” So either he misspoke and the rule is constitutional, or he previously voted for a rule that he knew was not constitutional.

Conservative talk show host, Mark Levin, has threatened to take the matter to court to reverse any measure passed via this procedure. Would that mean that every bill passed in this way by Republicans would also be repealed?

Fox News legal analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, made a nearly incoherent argument that the rule is unconstitutional but that the Supreme Court wouldn’t interfere with congressional discretion. This is a (former) judge who actually believes that the Supreme Court would let stand a law despite considering it to be a violation of the Constitution. That’s just plain nonsense. The court can issue rulings that are debatable, or even wrong, but they do not issue rulings that are contrary to what they believe.

Fox News, on the other hand, has no problem reporting things that they don’t believe. It is entirely implausible that the editors and reporters at Fox don’t know about the use of self-executing rules. Yet they misreport on them anyway. And now they even characterize them as being unconstitutional when they know that that isn’t the truth. And those false characterizations are posted on their news pages and are not differentiated as opinion. Which is why you have to wonder if honesty means anything to Fox News.

Glenn Beck Forgets To Expose His Latest White House Marxist

Posted by on March 16, 2010 at 4:11 pm. 3 Comments :

We can chalk this one down to another broken promise from Fox News’ star paranoid, Glenn Beck. On last Thursday’s program he teased his audience with news of yet another example of the cancer that was eating away our country from within:

Thursday, March 11, 2010: “And a programming note. There’s a new advisor to President Obama who fits nicely in this group. Oh, he loves Marx. I’ll introduce you to him on Monday because, see, it’s important that we know who these people are, and we know what the influences are. Otherwise we’ll be Doomed to Repeat.”

If it is so important that we know who these people are, then why did Beck break his promise to introduce us to this new White House Marxist yesterday. I even gave him the benefit of doubt and waited to see if the introduction would come today. Beck was busy defending his hatred of Jesus yesterday and exposes always come after self-interest. But there was no mention of this commie mole on today’s program either. The whole hour was just an infomercial for his upcoming American Revival tour. I can’t help wondering how much additional damage is being done by this traitor while Beck neglects to reveal his identity. I might have suspected that Beck was just trying to make sure people tuned in day after day, waiting the big scoop, but he hasn’t even spoken of it since Thursday.

The reference Beck made to being “Doomed to Repeat” was another sales pitch, this time for his “special” program this Friday. It seems that every show is now an infomercial. I’m sure Friday’s special is filled with information that is just as accurate as the title, which Beck misquoted from the famous counsel of George Santayana:

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Well, you can’t expect Beck to get everything right when he’s under such pressure from religious leaders, and Fox News colleagues, and agent provocateurs inside our government, and the voices in his head. Perhaps it was those voices that distracted him from keeping his word to reveal the commie du jour.

Howard Kurtz Stumbles Into The Obvious On Glenn Beck

Posted by on March 15, 2010 at 1:17 pm. 3 Comments :

Nobody is going to mistake Howard Kurtz (CNN/Washington Post) for an insightful media analyst. His sycophantic and highly conflicted reporting barely qualifies as news on most days. And his latest column for the Post is no exception. However, it does hit on a couple of obvious truths that only Kurtz can think of as revelations:

Howard Kurtz: Beck has become a constant topic of conversation among Fox journalists, some of whom say they believe he uses distorted or inflammatory rhetoric that undermines their credibility.

Ya think?

HK: [Fox News VP Bill] Shine says that last fall a vice president was assigned “to help keep an eye on that program” and review its content in advance — a full-time job.

A full-time VP to keep an eye on Beck? I sure hope that guy had mental health insurance. Also, he didn’t do a very good job, judging by what made it to the air.

HK: Television analyst Andrew Tyndall calls Beck an “activist” and “comedian” whose incendiary style has created “a real crossroads for Fox News. […] They’re right on the cusp of losing their image as a news organization,” he declares.

What on earth would it take for Tyndall to regard them as over the cusp?

HK: When Fox covers breaking news during Beck’s hour, some journalists say, they are flooded with angry e-mail from viewers about the preemption.

And who could blame them? Beck’s viewers don’t want to be bothered with “news.” Even the sort that Fox pretends to deliver.

HK: Some staffers say they have watched rehearsals, on internal monitors, in which Beck has teared up or paused at the same moments as he later did during the show.

Because the secret of good comedy/propaganda is timing.

HK: Beck has caused such anguish at Fox that some of its journalists celebrated the failure of last week’s interview with embattled ex-congressman Eric Massa, which Beck pronounced a waste of time.

If those “journalists” want to celebrate whenever Beck’s program is a waste of time, they could celebrate every day.

Thanks Howie, for your always keen and penetrating outlook.

[Update: 3/17/10]: It appears Fox News CEO Roger Ailes was disturbed by Kurtz’ article. He hustled down to DC to dress down his staff for talking about “The Family.” In short he ordered them to shut up, fall in line, obey, or leave. And what ever they do, do not have an independent thought. That’s what the talking points are for.

Roger Ailes channels Michael Corleone:

Karl Rove Confesses: Most Of Fox News Is Unfair

Posted by on March 14, 2010 at 2:25 pm. 11 Comments :

Today on Meet the Press, Tom Brokaw (sitting in for David Gregory) interviewed Fox News contributor Karl Rove. In the course of the discussion Rove spewed the routine misrepresentations and falsehoods that one one might expect of him. But there was one exchange that was surprisingly honest:

TOM BROKAW: You’re now at Fox News. Do you think that Fox News is fair to President Obama?

KARL ROVE: I think they – on the news side, absolutely. I think that they’ve got first-rate individuals at the White House who – do their job. And in an objective, fair, and balanced way, yeah, absolutely.

Notice the qualification Rove inserts into his answer: “on the news side.” His assessment of fairness explicitly excludes those portions of the Fox schedule that are designated as opinion programs. Now recall that Michael Clemente, senior vice president of Fox News, defines the hours of 9am to 4pm, and 6pm to 8pm, as the dayparts that air straight news. So by their own calculation, that’s just nine hours of “news” programming. But the Fox & Friends morning block, plus the afternoon Cavuto/Beck double bill, plus the primetime fare (which is repeated) and the late night Red Eye, all add up to 13 hours. So the majority of their schedule is what they themselves regard as editorial content. Which means the majority of their schedule is deliberately unfair in the view of Karl Rove, who went out of his way to say so.

Taking into consideration the fact that what they do call “news” is heavily infested with opinions straight out of Beckville and Hannityland, it’s clear why Fox has zero credibility when it comes to authentic journalism. Former New York times editor Howell Raines noted this absence of objectivity in a recent op-ed. And Bill O’Reilly, never one to miss an opportunity to demonstrate the thinness of his skin, fired back back at Raines saying…

“The Factor is the signature broadcast of the Fox News Channel and we have covered the Obama-care debate carefully and with fairness, as have most of my colleagues.”

So O’Reilly is contradicting both Rove and Clemente. First he asserts that his show is fair (notwithstanding Rove’s contrary assessment). Then he describes it, not just as a “news” broadcast, but as the network’s “signature” example of one (despite not complying with Clemente’s definition).

In the end, O’Reilly’s ego confirms Rove’s confession. Fox News is utterly unfair throughout most of its broadcast day and its hired goons can’t tell the difference.

Glenn Beck vs. Martin Luther King On Social Justice

Posted by on March 14, 2010 at 3:06 am. 2 Comments :

Glenn Beck is feeling the heat from his repulsive commandment that his you should leave your church if it advocates social justice. Church leaders from across the religious spectrum are renouncing the ravings of His AssHoliness™. But there is another factor in this affair that ought not to be ignored.

When it suits his purpose, Beck will not hesitate to embrace Martin Luther King. Beck has even included King’s picture and words in the opening credits of his TV show (but no more). On the many times that Beck is accused of being racist he will cite King in an attempt to inoculate himself from the invariably correct criticisms. But that hasn’t prevented him from also calling King a radical and questioning whether there should be a day honoring him. And on the subject of social justice, which Beck is currently castigating as some sort of Da Vinci coded proxy for Marxism, King once said…

“[W]e will be able to go this additional distance and achieve the ideal, the goal of the new age, the age of social justice.”

Contrast that with Beck’s twisted view on the matter. It begins with a warning that when you see the words social justice you should…

“Run, and don’t listen to anyone who is telling you differently. […] It is a perversion of the Gospel.”

I’m not sure where Beck acquired his theological training. Perhaps it was when he was an alcoholic drug abuser. Or maybe it was after he sobered up and became a Mormon because, as he admits, if he didn’t his then-girlfriend wouldn’t sleep with him. In any case, he now considers himself so authoritative on spiritual matters that he, and only he, warrants your attention and observance.

The distinction between Beck and King is important because Beck has appropriated an anniversary that is cherished by Americans who revere King and his works. Beck is holding a rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, on the anniversary of King’s “I Have A Dream” speech, which was delivered at the same location. The dark irony of Beck pontificating on that platform, on that day, is purely revolting. As is the prospect of his all-white army of paranoids desecrating the historical significance of King’s oratory there almost half a century ago.

Beck demonstrated his commitment to his version of social justice when he appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s show last week. The discussion turned to whether the government could regulate unhealthy behavior like excessive consumption of junk foods. Setting aside the fact that no one in government is proposing that, O’Reilly nevertheless asked Beck how he would deal with someone who had a heart attack due to such a lifestyle and who did not have insurance. Beck’s prescription? “Sucks to be him.”

Beck continued by saying that he would not pay for this person’s health care or treatment in an emergency room. O’Reilly, acting in the unfamiliar role as the voice of reason, told him that he was already paying for that. Whereupon Beck changed his tune and came out as an advocate of government regulation of personal behavior. Not just once, but three times:

“If you don’t want to work, or if you can’t work, well then you are on government assistance, well then I can now regulate your life.”

“If you are taking money. . .if you want to be a slave to the government, then they have every right.”

“So here is the deal, if you don’t have insurance and you need to take the government insurance, then the government has the right to regulate every aspect of your life. But leave the rest of us alone.”

To which O’Reilly responded, “I like that.”

There is so much wrong with this that it’s hard to know where to begin. Let’s start with the cruel insensitivity of Beck’s initial response that it “sucks” to have a heart attack and that’s just too bad for you. Go away and die. That isn’t just a denunciation of social justice, it’s sociopathic.

Then Beck mentions something about a “need to take the government insurance.” Of course, there is no such thing. When a patient is unable to pay for emergency treatment the cost is transferred to the medical facility and eventually to future patients in the form of higher rates for treatment and insurance. The current debate over health care reform has proposed a “public option,” but Beck opposes that (and everything else in the pending legislation) as socialism. What’s worse, he takes the utterly detestable position that anyone on public assistance surrenders his liberty to the state. He even uses the word “slave” to describe the status of such a person. Somehow, I don’t think that was an accidental racial reference.

What makes this particularly disgusting is that Beck has fiercely criticized the federal bailouts of banks and auto companies. Then, when the administration tried to assert some control over how those funds can be used (for instance, prohibiting the banks from using the taxpayers’ money for extravagant, undeserved bonuses), Beck complained that the government was interfering with a private business. So in Beck’s warped mind it is wrong to tell troubled corporations how to spend money they get from the government, but if you’re a private citizen undergoing an economic hardship the government can take ownership of you and “regulate every aspect of your life.”

I really can’t fathom how Beck justifies his contemptible callousness and hypocrisy. Corporations get billions in tax credits, trade subsidies, development incentives, etc., and all of that was before the bailouts. But they have no obligation to the taxpayers who provide it. Your Uncle Andy gets a few bucks for groceries and shoes for the kids and he is obliged to be the government’s slave. And even then he gets no medical care for himself or his family. Of course not. How could the government afford it after giving all those billions to the corporations and trillions more to pay for illegal and unnecessary wars?

That’s Glenn Beck’s version of social justice. It’s compassionless, hollow, and inhumane. Beck doesn’t deserve to walk the same earth as Martin Luther King, much less desecrate King’s memory by usurping the anniversary of his historic address. It was an address that spoke specifically of the obligation America owes to its citizens as promised in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It was an address that foresaw liberty and justice for all:

King: “[W]e refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.”

That’s the difference between King’s full-hearted grace and Beck’s hardhearted arrogance. King had a positive vision of the goodness in humanity and a belief in what we can achieve together. Beck has faith only in self-interest and the privilege of the fortunate. Let’s hope that King’s vision prevails.

Addendum: Beck has generously supplied us with his definition of Social justice:

“Forced redistribution of wealth with a hostility toward individual property rights, under the guise of charity and/or justice.”

That explains a lot. If I defined kittens as blood thirsty killing machines, you can bet I would lead the opposition to kittens. Of course, I would be insane to have that definition, right Glenn? Glenn?

Who’s Afraid Of Fox News? A Confederacy Of Cowards!

Posted by on March 12, 2010 at 3:08 pm. 9 Comments :

The national embarrassment to honest journalism that is Fox News continues to contaminate our country’s airwaves with false and misleading information designed to promote a conservative Republican agenda and to demonize Democrats and progressives. Almost a year ago I wrote an article that asked the question: “Who’s Afraid Of Fox News?” My answer was: “The Rest Of The Media!” It was an examination of how Fox aggressively attacked their competitors and how their competitors simply rolled over, apparently afraid to fight back. Now, a year later, not much has changed.

Sure, there have been a few disjointed, lucid moments. For instance, Rick Sanchez of CNN, who called out Fox for a thoroughly dishonest report that claimed that no one but Fox covered a Tea Bagger event in Washington. However, not only did CNN cover it, Fox used photos from CNN’s coverage to make their false claim that there wasn’t any coverage. Another example was when former White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, honestly told Howard Kurtz that Fox News operates as “the communications arm of the Republican Party.” Her remarks were seconded by Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. It was a promising trend.

But overall, there is still a deafening silence from most of the press. They still seem to be skittish and reluctant to offend the mighty Fox. That is, when they aren’t trying to emulate it. One voice that has arisen is that of Howell Raines, the former executive editor of the New York Times. He has written an op-ed for the Washington Post that is far more insightful and combative than anything he produced when he was at the Times. The article asks some questions that ought to have been asked long ago by every member of the media who values journalistic integrity:

Why don’t honest journalists take on Roger Ailes and Fox News?

Why haven’t America’s old-school news organizations blown the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a propaganda campaign against the Obama administration — a campaign without precedent in our modern political history?

Why has our profession, through its general silence — or only spasmodic protest — helped Fox legitimize a style of journalism that is dishonest in its intellectual process, untrustworthy in its conclusions and biased in its gestalt?

Why can’t American journalists steeped in the traditional values of their profession be loud and candid about the fact that Murdoch does not belong to our team?

Why indeed? And why has it taken so long to ask these questions? And why aren’t all of Raines’ colleagues signing on to his rebuke of Fox, Murdoch, and Ailes? It shouldn’t take much courage for responsible journalists to defend their honor, but courage is in short supply in today’s press corps.

The sooner the rest of the media come to grips with the fact that Fox is NOT a news organization, the sooner they themselves can return to the business of news. Fox is in an entirely different category. It is a hybrid entertainment/soap opera/televangelist network. It is just as unnecessary for the media to worry about competition from Fox as it is to worry about competition from Nickelodeon (which, ironically, is a better source for news than Fox, and plays to a smarter audience).

It will be interesting to see if the questions Raines raises are taken up by others. And more importantly, will they provide answers? American media is in dire condition, and part of the reason is that news consumers do not perceive value in the product. That is going to have to change before things improve. And the most fruitful change would be to start behaving as real journalists and not tabloid sensationalists. In other words, abandon the Fox model and expose it for the phony, divisive, disinformation factory that it is. Of course, that would take real reporting and, at present, there is precious little of that in evidence.