I wonder how this one is gonna go over at the next News Corp board meeting.
On his program yesterday, Glenn Beck embarked on another of his famously illogical rants. This one had something to do with the Israeli encounter with activists seeking to break the blockade in the Persian Gulf. Somehow Beck segued into a discussion of 9/11 and an offer made by a Saudi prince to help with restoration efforts.
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal approached New York’s then-mayor Rudy Giuliani and offered $10 million to help the city recover. Giuliani, in a fit of intolerance, refused the money. In the retelling of these events, Beck hypothesized that the money was tainted and that the Saudi donor was aligned with the terrorists who flew the planes into the World Trade Center towers:
“Do you remember what happened right after 9/11 with Rudy Giuliani? Do you remember Saudi Arabia came and said, we want to help. This guy [pointing at Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud] came over and said ‘I want to give you a $10 million dollar check.’ Rudy Giuliani said, ‘you see that over there? I don’t think we want your help. You already sent us help. And you flew that help into … the trade centers.‘ The same prince later blamed the U.S. policy for the attacks. Giuliani said, take your check, we don’t want your money.”
I’m not sure how any of that related to the incident in the Persian Gulf. Beck is notorious for constructing incoherent scenarios that reflect nothing more than his hallucinatory imagination. But the real problem here is that the Saudi Prince who Beck explicitly accused of being part of the Al Qaeda gang who attacked Manhattan on 9/11, is actually the largest shareholder of Fox News’ parent, News Corp, other than Rupert Murdoch and members of his family. That makes him Beck’s boss. Prince Alwaleed is also a close friend of Murdoch and former President Bush.
Set aside for the moment that Alwaleed is an international financier who has never been implicated in terrorism or affiliated with terrorists. Thus, Beck’s accusation is the most vile sort of slander. It’s typical of Beck’s hypocrisy that he would fiercely reject the notion of taking any money from this person that he regards as a terrorist, yet Beck is taking money from him every day as an employee of the company that Alwaleed owns a significant portion of. It’s also typical that Beck’s appreciation for facts is so limited as to not even acknowledge this relationship.
So what consequences will there be for Beck calling Alwaleed a terrorist? Beck has survived calling President Obama a racist. He has survived the loss of millions of dollars due to an advertiser boycott. He has survived equating social justice to Marxism and telling his viewers to leave their churches if they practice it. He has survived hosting (and agreeing with) Michael Scheuer, who said that the only hope for America is for Bin Laden to attack us again with weapons of mass destruction. Can Beck survive calling the owner of his network a terrorist?
Murdoch and his henchman, Fox CEO Roger Ailes, are in a difficult position. If they do nothing they risk Alwaleed punishing them by dumping his stock. That would likely result in a plunging value for News Corp shares. If they fire Beck they could unleash a backlash from the Beck Confederacy of Dunces that could result in a massive exodus of their core viewers. Even more troublesome is the potential for violent responses from the aggrieved BeckPods.
If I were forced to make a prediction, I would lean toward everyone doing nothing. The past tells us that Fox News is disinclined to ever acknowledge flaws or wrongdoing. And the major players are all business people who may regard their financial prospects as their highest priority – even Alwaleed. Beck may get a stern talking to, and he may have to promise to be more careful in the future, but I think it is unlikely that he would be terminated over this if he wasn’t terminated over advocating more terrorist attacks on our country.
Perhaps the effect of Beck’s cumulative transgressions may lead to a more severe response, but there’s been no evidence of that in the past. It’s possible that Murdoch may be itching to ditch Beck. He has been attempting to polish his legacy as a serious newspaperman in his golden years. But he could easily be dissuaded from taking action by Ailes and by his fear of the Becklash.
If I’m wrong, and Beck is set adrift, it would be to the credit of News Corp’s management. Although why they didn’t act sooner will still remain a blot on their managerial record. But if I’m right, it would just further affirm Fox’s status as wholly unethical, utterly unprofessional, thoroughly dishonest, and blatantly self-serving. It would reinforce their position that disseminating propaganda is more important than respect for the truth or responsible journalism. Now, which side of that equation do you think Fox would come out on?
The Dunce corp is in quite a dilema. Those with working brains are bailing out and the older dedicated viewers are ending up in the funeral parlors. Can’t decided if he will get canned or go totally biserk first. The Prince is the joker in the deck right now. Maybe he could seek advice from king dad if he’s not busy holding hands with W and kissing on each other (the way they do!)
Mark,
Where did you find the information that Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is the largest shareholder out the Murdoch family?
The irony of it is delicious.
Here is one of many sources for the info on Alwaleed’s position in News Corp: PR Watch.
The more I think about this the funnier it gets. Essentially Beck is sitting on his hands working for a guy he accuses of helping finance 9/11.
Except that Beck isn’t sitting on his hands. Along with taking his money, he is openly promoting the business interests of, and helping to enrich, the guy he accuses of helping finance 9/11.
If you’re wrong, I predict a drop in blackboard sales.
If anything, a rich Muslim MIGHT bring Fox News a little bit closer to their “Fair and Balanced” slogan. Maybe.
I watch Beck and often wonder why people don’t investigate his alligations about the Obama administration. If what he says is true then it warrents further investigation and if not true he should be exposed. It does not help to just call Beck names. What we need is an old fashion Muckraker to look into the people in the White House. It is easier to Muchrake today since they have all of these speeches you can check out on line
You haven’t been paying attention. Beck’s demented claims claims HAVE been investigated and proven untrue. Over and over again. Everything from Van Jones being a convicted felon (he is not) to ACORN engaging in voter fraud (they did not) to his hysterical “discovery” of socialist art on the streets of Manhattan.
Glenn Beck is a perpetual lie machine.
Acorn engaging in voter fraud?
They registered an illegal alien in one of my wife’s collage classes and told the illegal she could vote because she lives here. My wife saw her voting at the polls in NOV ’08.
But I guess that isn’t enough evidence, after all it’s my story so that makes it hear-say.
You’re right – that isn’t evidence. No offense, but it can’t be verified.
However, even if it happened it doesn’t reflect on ACORN. There were ACORN volunteers who submitted invalid registrations, but in those cases ACORN was the victim of fraud (not the perpetrator) by people who were tasked with acquiring valid registrations. And if someone who filled out an invalid registration attempted to vote (highly unlikely because the state and county verify the forms) it still isn’t ACORN’s fault. It is the ineligible voter who might have committed voter fraud.
After three independent investigations there has never been a finding of fact that ACORN did anything wrong. THOSE are the facts. So what I said is completely true.
It can’t be verified because this particular case wasn’t investigated. So the Acorn employee who tells the young lady that citizenship doesn’t matter, just fill out the form like this … Since she lives in a sanctuary city, doesn’t know about voter fraud and is friends with my wife, she had no problem revealing the truth when my wife asked.
So let’s see, the illegal alien is now going to step forward and admit she committed voter fraud to help the prosecution of this case, doubtful.
Interesting way you have of spinning the facts about blame here though.
Even if it happened exactly as you say, then ACORN is still not guilty of anything. If one of their volunteers collects invalid registrations that is the volunteer’s responsibility. ACORN has demonstrated that they train their people to only collect valid registrations. That seems obvious because if their mission is to impact elections by registering new voters, then it is detrimental to their mission to waste time and money collecting invalid registrations. That doesn’t grow the voter base.
In most of the cases where it was discovered that invalid registrations were submitted, it was ACORN who revealed it to authorities. They even separated out the suspect forms. And the law requires that they turn in EVERY registration that is filled out, even if they suspect it is invalid. That is what they did.
Can you see that it is ACORN who is the victim if one of their volunteers turns in invalid forms? If I hire you to gather signatures of people in our county, but you deliberately bring back petitions with people outside of the county, you have defrauded me. I’m paying you to perform a specific duty that you are not doing.
Hey, you know what? We have both gotten off track. Let’s go back to the original issue which was you’re assertion that I made incorrect criticisms of Beck. Your example was that I said that Beck’s claim that ACORN committed voter fraud is untrue. But that is a correct statement because Beck has never been able to support his accusation. And neither has anyone else. So my record of accuracy is still intact.
Beck has been investigated. If there was basis for a slanderous lawsuit, a Cease and Desist Order would be followed by a court conviction and we wouldn’t miss that event here. All that News Corpse can belch is – Beck is a liar.
First of all, slander is not applicable here. We are talking about political speech which is subject to different legal standards. Otherwise 90% of campaign ads could be accused of being slanderous.
Secondly, you suggested that “all I do” is call Beck a liar once before, and when when I challenged you on it you couldn’t back it up. I document my claims as to Beck’s dishonesty, including the one that is the subject of this article (that Alwaleed is a terrorist). You may desperately want to dismiss my accurate assessment of Beck, but you should offer something more than empty attacks as evidence.
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud is probably laughing about it all the way to the bank with profits from Beck’s market share ratings.
It is possible that with the size of his empire he is unknowingly connected. A while back we had GE peddling goods to Iran under the Bush Administration and a small circuit board manufacturer in Florida whose products showed up in IEDs in Iraq so one could claim that they are supporting terrorism, albeit a stretch.
A stretch also describes your claim “Glenn Beck Blames 9/11 On Major Fox News Shareholder” based on the supporting evidence you provide. At 0:23 in the You Tube clip Beck says “Saudi Arabia …” NOT the Prince. Accepting that check from a country that at best only sympathizes with the terrorist act and also blames the victim for bringing upon them would be the height of hypocrisy. Just imagine the political fall out that would follow, which I don’t believe even crossed Giuliani’s mind at the time. If I am correct (and I know you will correct me if wrong) your sampled snip it was taken from Beck’s segment regarding a ship flying a flag of one of Israel’s “Best Buddies” running a blockade to provide humanitarian aide to Gaza. So my take on it is Beck is admonishing that Countries/Organizations who come bearing gifts may not be your true friends.
Come on Wally. To suggest that Alwaleed is “unknowingly connected” is pure speculation, and if it’s unknown then Beck doesn’t know it either (ergo, he’s lying). Also, it would indict Rupert Murdoch as well because he is in business with Alwaleed. So, is Murdoch also a terrorist?
Also, Beck DID blame Alwaleed. Right after he said “Saudi Arabia” he got up and pointed to the picture of Alwaleed and said “this guy.” After that he explicitly said “…the same Prince…” There is no question he was referring to Alwaleed. What video were you watching?
Speculation indeed, as is yours regarding Murdock. But I am not claiming this; I said one could… albeit a stretch. Let’s get back to your stretch.
Which video? – Oh, you had me going there for a second !
“…the same Prince…” And the same Saudi Royalty Prince representing the Saudi Arabian Government in its official capacity warns the United States that it needs to address it’s policy that led to the attack suggesting the victim is at fault, is the complete context of the expression to mean, not Alwaleed the businessman. He did not blame Alwaleed for the 911 attack. Nice try Mark.
Let the record show it was NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani who made this statement and not Glenn Beck. Beck documents this reference to Giuliani. (at 0:21, 0:30 & 1:08) That video, Right?
So where does your editorial claim “Beck hypothesized that the money was tainted and that the Saudi donor was aligned with the terrorists” fit in? I don’t see that reference by Glenn Beck anywhere in the video. Are we watching the same video?
First of all, I wasn’t speculating about Murdoch. I was extending your speculation.
Secondly, I’m just pointing to the things that Beck actually said. He said:
If you don’t see that in the video – you just don’t want to. At this point, let’s let anyone else who is interested decide for themselves by watching the video.
Good argument Mark,
So if what you say is true it should prove to be a good defense for BP being victimized by one of their employees covertly cutting corners to please the boss.
That would be correct if what happened was the result of a single person who deliberately disobeyed BP’s stated instructions. If a bank employee alters the books to cover up missing funds, it is the employee who would be prosecuted, not the bank, who is the victim.
However, if the explosion and the resulting catastrophe was caused by the actions of people performing in accordance with BP’s management (which all the evidence points to), then it isn’t an errant employee who is responsible, it’s the company.
Mark said: (posted above) “So my record of accuracy is still intact.”
Yes you are correct.
OJ did not murder Nicole, which is a fact – he was acquitted in the criminal case.
And so was this statement following your argument style.
Or stated another way; Results are facts and truths are beliefs, despite being widely held.
My final input on Beck Blames …
It is not a question of want, I don’t.
The context of help is The One Thing that requires the complete segment to see.
Let the viewer decide.
Dude, not that it makes a difference to your argument, but the Gaza strip is on the Mediterranean, not on the Persian Gulf. Look at a map.