Fox News Reporter’s Guide: Think Like An Intolerant Meathead

Posted by on February 10, 2011 at 3:15 pm. 5 Comments :

Fox NewsMedia matters has published an interview with a former Fox News “insider” who reveals the inner workings of a modern propaganda operation. Some of the revelations have been obvious for years. Some of them will just infuriate you. Here are some highlights:

“I don’t think people would believe it’s as concocted as it is; that stuff is just made up.”

“It is their M.O. to undermine the administration and to undermine Democrats. They’re a propaganda outfit but they call themselves news.”

“You have to work there for a while to understand the nods and the winks. And God help you if you don’t because sooner or later you’re going to get burned.”

“[A]nything that was a news story you had to understand what the spin should be on it. If it was a big enough story it was explained to you in the morning [editorial] meeting. If it wasn’t explained, it was up to you to know the conservative take on it.”

“My internal compass was to think like an intolerant meathead. You could never error on the side of not being intolerant enough.”

“[Y]ou have to buy into the idea that the other media is howling left-wing. Don’t even start arguing that or you won’t even last your first day.”

Media Matters has much more. Check it out. It is fascinating getting this info from an insider. Very few people associated with Fox ever speak out, even after they have left. A couple of exceptions include Eric Burns, former host of Fox News Watch, and Jane Hall, former Fox News contributor. Both cited Glenn Beck as the reason for their departure. More notable was former Fox reporter David Shuster who said:

“At the time I started at Fox, I thought, this is a great news organization to let me be very aggressive with a sitting president of the United States (Bill Clinton). I started having issues when others in the organization would take my carefully scripted and nuanced reporting and pull out bits and pieces to support their agenda on their shows.”

“With the change of administration in Washington, I wanted to do the same kind of reporting, holding the (Bush) administration accountable, and that was not something that Fox was interested in doing.”

“Editorially, I had issues with story selection. But the bigger issue was that there wasn’t a tradition or track record of honoring journalistic integrity. I found some reporters at Fox would cut corners or steal information from other sources or in some cases, just make things up. Management would either look the other way or just wouldn’t care to take a closer look. I had serious issues with that.”

It’s time that more people with knowledge speak out about the damage that Fox News is doing every day to the practice of journalism. We need more people like Howell Raines who asked some pertinent questions to his colleagues about their appeasement of Fox. (Too bad he waited until after he had left the NYT). And we need more insiders like Matthew Freud, the husband of Rupert Murdoch’s daughter Elisabeth, who said that he was “…ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes.”

Fox News provides more proof every day that they are not a credible news enterprise. Today, as all hell was breaking loose in Egypt, Fox cut away to air their regularly scheduled broadcast of Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck!?! Is that what a news channel would do?

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Now Glenn Beck Loves The New York Times

Posted by on February 10, 2011 at 12:04 pm. 1 Comments :

“We have always been at war with Eastasia…” George Orwell, 1984.

Never mind that Glenn Beck has long been a critic of the so-called liberal New York Times; set aside his frequent tirades against it as a mouthpiece for progressives and other “enemies” of freedom. Today is ValenTimes Day as Beck cites the Times as proof that his crackpot scenarios of a global Caliphate are true.

The source of Beck’s evidence is a Times story about young activists engaging in protests to remove Mubarak from power in Egypt. Beck quotes a single paragraph from the article that describes the efforts of a small coalition of protesters:

“In the process many have formed some unusual bonds that reflect the singularly nonideological character of the Egyptian youth revolt, which encompasses liberals, socialists and members of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

This statement merely affirms that the movement to oust Mubarak is broad-based and includes many factions of disaffected young Egyptians. But it is embraced by Beck as confirmation of his inane theory that radical Islamists are working with secular leftists around the world to topple capitalism. The only thing this article asserts is that the people in the streets of Egypt have diverse reasons for being involved in the protests. The people interviewed by the Times were a tiny group of 15 young individuals who are not powerful national figures and will not participate in the formation of a new government. They are simply engaged citizens who share only the desire to bring democracy to Egypt. In fact, they said so explicitly in a paragraph that Beck neglected to cite:

“Most of the group are liberals or leftists, and all, including the Brotherhood members among them, say they aspire to a Western-style constitutional democracy where civic institutions are stronger than individuals.”

Once again Beck has cherry-picked the information that supports his delusions and ignored facts that dispute them. That’s standard operating procedure for Beck.

Side Note: As Beck was dissecting this article, news that Mubarak will step down hit the wires. Without hesitation, Beck launched into wild speculation of an imminent bloodbath, an Islamic takeover of Egypt, and the fall of more Middle Eastern nations to come. Like the rest of Beck’s predictions, these will be left floating in the ether after they fail to transpire.

I have long cast Beck as being closer to a televangelist than a political analyst. And like other supposed prophets whose promise of a Second Coming fail to occur, Beck will simply change his story or select another date. And his disciples will obediently follow.


The Conspiracy Against Glenn Beck

Posted by on February 9, 2011 at 2:35 pm. 5 Comments :

Glenn BeckLook out Lizard People. Glenn Beck is on to you. He has uncovered the dusty scrolls and connected the dots and discovered the plot by the vast network of enemies that are seeking his downfall. And he will not yield.

To demonstrate his resolve, Beck took to the airwaves yesterday and compared himself to “the enlightened one,” Buddha. I guess his prior Messianic aspirations weren’t doing the job so he’s bringing in spiritual reinforcements. And for good measure he compared his TV sermonizing with the teaching of slaves to read. But he wants more than literacy. He insists that if you don’t use the information he provides to “move the country forward” then “it’s just another form of entertainment, and that’s not what this show is.” Funny, that’s not exactly what he said in an interview with Forbes last year:

“I could give a flying crap about the political process. […] We’re an entertainment company.”

But that was then and this is now. And now he is under siege. There is an unprecedented assault on all that is good, and he is the sole obstacle to the looming menace. Take heed America:

“I don’t think since the 1930’s we have seen such a growth of profound evil in the world. And it seems to be growing at an exponential rate. The way to fight it is to expose it. Evil hides in the shadows. This is something that I think we all know even as kids.”

Beck then relates a charming story of how his children at bedtime asked him to leave the lights on and check their closets. Of course there is never anything to fear in these dark recesses of his kids imaginations. Yet Beck draws a moral from this that…

“We know as children bad things can hide in the dark.”

No we don’t! We have irrational fears as children that we eventually grow out of. Then some us start listening to fear merchants like Glenn Beck and have to start checking under the bed again for communists, Muslims, and community organizers. Beck even joked that he had to restrain himself from pretending that there really were monsters in the closet. He may have controlled that impulse in his son’s bedroom, but he indulges it every day on television. Later in the program he insists that he isn’t trying to scare anyone. “I don’t ever want to frighten you,” he says. But that contradicts what he said just a few days ago (2/4/11) when he told his viewers that “If you haven’t been frightened yet, oh you will be. You will be.” Which is it, Glenn?

He revealed a bunch of blackboards on which were written what he said were his predictions that had come true. He led off with “We will have universal healthcare.” Not only did that not come true, it was never even included in the debate over health care reform. He continued with numerous other examples of predictions that only came true in his mind.

All of these self-congratulatory fantasies were designed to bolster his sense of infallibility leading up to a condemnation of conservative pundits who lately have been turning against Beck. Many in the right-wing establishment have recognized that Beck’s delusions are casting a shadow of crazy over all of them and they are beginning to resent it. Beck’s television audience has been slashed by half in the past year. His radio presence is also faltering. He was recently dropped by stations in both New York and Philadelphia due to low ratings. Consequently, critics on the right are finding their courage as Beck’s aura fades.

Beck regards these events as the seeds of a conspiracy to discredit him. On his radio show this morning he said just that:

“I think there’s something happening with the Republicans and the the right that is disturbing. There was a time that the Republicans and the right, if you will, didn’t mind the Tea Party. They used them as fuel. […] Anyone that talks about freedom, or is a real wild card that can hurt the party, are they being politically assassinated at this point?”

However, I’m not sure that Beck knows what the word conspiracy means. In yesterday’s program he complained that he had been accused of calling the uprising in Egypt a conspiracy of Islamic radicals and American leftists. He insisted that he had not done so. He merely said that they were “like-minded” and were “working together.” See? No conspiracy.

What’s happening is that Beck is hunkering down into his bunker. He is feeling the heat and thrashing out wildly in self-defense. Despite all the evidence, and agreement across the political spectrum, Beck is affirming his paranoid nightmares. He is digging in his heels. And he is accusing his critics of engaging in a vast conspiracy to ridicule and/or silence him.

This isn’t the first time he has responded this way to criticism. Last year when he was coming under fire for associating social justice with Marxism, he had a similar overreaction that sparked his paranoia:

“Is it possible, maybe, that pointing out every night that there are radicals, Marxists, and communists, in the White House, maybe that struck a nerve? Has someone decided that they must destroy my career and silence me because we’ve stumbled onto something?”

There you have it. Glenn Beck has been the target of an evil cabal for months, maybe years. Now that cabal is coming out of the shadows and includes such nefarious radicals as Rich Lowry of the National Review and William Kristol of the Weekly Standard and Fox News. And it is making Beck nervous – and desperate. That’s why he is devoting several days of his program to defending himself and attacking his perceived enemies. For all the fear that Beck is disgorging, it is he who is the most fearful. And it shows in his flailing and panic.

Let me be the first to say that there is no conspiracy against Glenn Beck. It is just a bunch of like-minded people working together to correct the disinformation that Beck disseminates. All we want is to offer up some truth and reality in place of the lies and delusions that are Beck’s specialty. If that results in Beck having to take his Freak Show underground, all the better. I’m sure he would be more comfortable there anyway, with his friends Alex Jones and the folks at the John Birch Society.


Keith Olbermann Warming Up To Al Gore? [Update] YES!

Posted by on February 8, 2011 at 9:30 am. 10 Comments :

A press release this afternoon revealed that Keith Olbermann would be announcing his next career move Tuesday morning in a conference call with the press. That release served as the starters pistol for a pack of media dogs to try to figure out what was up before the appointed time.

The New York Times appears to have won the race with a story that quotes anonymous sources saying that Olbermann will announce a pact with Al Gore’s Current TV. The details are sketchy, but they include an on-air presence for MSNBC’s former star attraction, as well as an equity stake in the company.

Current has had trouble getting traction as a network whose brand identity is rather mysterious. The network certainly didn’t take on the role that many had expected when it was first announced that Al Gore was starting a cable channel. Many assumed that it would be a liberal answer to Fox News, but that never transpired. Instead, it attempted to invent a new genre that melded television and the Internet.

This could be an interesting arrangement. If Olbermann is coming aboard to launch a news division (Current Affairs?), he could restore some of the original excitement that buzzed around the network when it launched. It would not have to be a wholesale reorganization. They could just add a couple of personalities and, if I had my way, a media analysis program that reviewed the other broadcast and cable news outfits (Alternating Current?). And there’s a place for comedy as well. Any of these programming options would work within Current’s current ambiguous identity.

Current TV is presently seen in about 65 million U.S. homes. That’s about 20% less than MSNBC. For Olbermann this might look like a step backwards, but for Current it could be the catalyst that would help them break through to the upper tiers of cablecasting. They could leverage his star power to get more carriage and better channel positioning. And Keith would be able to extend his presence to the Internet with a full service news and entertainment site along the lines of the Huffington Post. Speaking of which, now that HuffPo has accepted gobs of cash to be part of a bigger media corporation, the Internet is in need of a new independent source for progressive news. And HuffPo’s sale demonstrates the potential value of the genre.

The Olbermann FactorNeedless to say, this is all wildly speculative. Tomorrow morning’s announcement may surprise everyone and have nothing to do with Current. Or it may involve Current but in ways not expected. We’ll know soon enough. But there is one scenario that I think we can safely rule out. Olbermann will not be returning to Fox. Rupert Murdoch recently said that he doesn’t want to fire him twice. But you really have to question Murdoch’s judgment when it is Olbermann whom he has called “crazy,” not Glenn Beck.

The news is official. Olbermann will be joining Current TV and bringing Countdown with him. In addition to that he will assume the title of Chief News Officer, implying a larger role in the production of news programming for the network. That is what I proposed above and it looks like they took my advice (leave me to my fantasies). Now, hopefully they can put together a compelling schedule and push the network onto more cable systems and into more homes.


It’s A Good Thing Bill O’Reilly’s Viewers Are Idiots

Posted by on February 8, 2011 at 12:36 am. 12 Comments :

Bill O'ReillyIf there is one thing that Bill O’Reilly (and the rest of the Fox News gang) has going for him, it’s that he doesn’t have to try very hard to slip bullshit past his viewers. They are unlikely to catch even the most obvious examples unless he deliberately points it out.

Case in point, O’Reilly went to great lengths to respond to criticism of one of his questions to President Obama during the Superbowl interview. The question he asked the President was:

“Does it disturb you that so many people hate you? It’s a serious question. They hate you.”

O’Reilly was incensed that anyone would have the effrontery to disparage his inquiry or his fairness. And he was certain that he could vanquish his critics with evidence that he asked the exact same question of former President George Bush:

“The people in the press hated you. A lot of them. Why?”

Of course, to an observer with a functioning brain stem, the questions were not really all that similar. First of all, Obama was faced with a question that presumed that he was hated by the American people. Bush was only asked to answer for why some reporters may have disliked him. That’s a profound difference. Secondly, O’Reilly’s tone toward Obama was accusatory as he demanded that the President explain why he was so damned unlikeable. But his demeanor toward Bush was one of sympathy and wonder as he sought grasp how anyone could think a negative thought about this good man.

What’s most interesting about this is that O’Reilly played both questions on his program tonight to defend himself against criticisms from Nancy Pelosi and others. He was actually convinced that this evidence would exonerate him. He put on his smarmiest expression and asserted in classic passive-aggressive tones that his critics were just manufacturing controversy and trying to make him, “your humble servant,” look bad. And, no doubt, his viewers ate it up.

And for that Bill O’Reilly must be grateful every day that his audience is so intellectually vacant that they can’t tell when he is being dishonest or disingenuous. It is a special gift that he has earned over years of deceiving the public and nurturing ignorance.


On AOL Acquiring Huffington Post

Posted by on February 7, 2011 at 5:22 pm. 5 Comments :

The announcement last night that Huffington Post is being bought by AOL has already generated a cyber-boatload of analysis, criticism, and speculation – mostly speculation.

I have long had an ambivalent view of HuffPo. While it gives opportunities to some progressives voices who are often shut out of the broader media, it also hosts some reactionary conservatives whose views are unproductive and dishonest. They have also taken a lot of heat for their gossipy celebrity content which I simply ignore.

AOL, although independent from TimeWarner for a little over a year, is still a giant corporation with many of the same principals and shareholders as prior to the separation. And therein lies my pessimism about the future of the HuffPo/AOL alliance.

The last thing independent media needs is more consolidation. By forming ever larger organizations, they fall into the same traps that Big Media always face. Their business mission ends up suppressing whatever aspirations they have for incisive journalism. They pander to advertisers and seek out stories that titillate rather than educate.

Arianna Huffington is predictably excited about the new arrangement. Why wouldn’t she be? The deal puts a value of over $300 million on her six year old venture. And she will become the head of all of AOL’s media properties. But she should be careful. She is also going to have a board of directors to which she will have to answer. And the obligation to appeal to a much broader audience could result in a dilution of any personality. Like other big news enterprises, she will have to cater to the lowest common denominator.

That’s why independence in the media is so precious. It allows for diversity of opinion and is the single best way to produce reporting that challenges the status quo, rattles societies gatekeepers, and enhances accountability. Those are the things we lose as media enterprises get more bloated and reliant on corporate infrastructure.

The combined AOL/HuffPo is still not as big as Fox or Comcast/NBC, and if they struggle mightily they may be able retain some independent identity. But on the whole this is not a promising development, and it is contrary to the direction that media should be heading.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Military Charity Event Featuring Sarah Palin Goes Bust

Posted by on February 7, 2011 at 10:02 am. 4 Comments :

Sarah PalinSarah Palin has spent most of the past two years trying to polish her credentials as a super-patriot and portray herself as a supporter of American ideals and, especially, soldiers and veterans. But her popularity (or lack thereof) outside of the Tea Party is increasingly a source of embarrassment.

Last month the Sharon K. Pacheco Foundation celebrated their booking of Palin to headline their fundraising gala. However, the foundation just announced that the event has been canceled. They wrote in a Facebook post that…

“Due to an onslaught of personal attacks against Governor Palin and others associated with her appearance, it is with deep sadness and disappointment that, in the best interest of all, we cancel the event for safety concerns.”

On the surface that would seem to be an unfortunate circumstance that reflects poorly on Palin’s opponents. But further exploration of the facts suggests a somewhat different reason for the event’s failure.

First of all, the foundation’s post also noted that “no direct threats have been made against anyone,” and that the safety concerns arose “despite the call for civility in America,” in the aftermath of the shootings in Tucson. That’s ironic in that Palin was a critic of such calls for civility and regarded them as an attack on her and her right to free speech.

More significantly, the Denver Post reports that tickets for the event were not exactly in demand. They went on sale in January for $185.00. Two weeks later a $15.00 discount was offered. Last week the price was cut in half. Apparently Palin isn’t the draw she thinks she is. It is not known if Palin was to receive her customary $100,000.00 speaking fee, but it is clear that the foundation was struggling to fill seats.

The Post also noted that there is an NBC/Politico sponsored GOP primary debate on May 2, the same day as the charity gala. Palin has not committed to participate in the debate (nor has anyone else), and she hasn’t even declared her candidacy. But she may have wanted to keep her calendar open, just in case.

Perhaps as a result of this affair, the media will start to represent Palin’s public profile more realistically. If she can’t sell tickets to a military charity, where is her support? Why is she still regarded by the press as a significant political figure? She routinely ranks near the bottom of GOP primary polls, and her favorability is in the gutter. Her canceled reality program on The Learning Channel lost half its viewers over its brief eight week run.

The truth is that she was a has-been before she began. She quit the only important job she ever held half way through. She was never taken seriously, even by her own handlers during the 2008 campaign. Her celebrity is akin to that of Kim Kardashian’s, and if there is a place for her in American culture, it’s on TMZ.


Stupor Bowl: Obama vs O’Reilly

Posted by on February 6, 2011 at 8:26 pm. 21 Comments :

This is what happens when you let a non-journalist attempt to conduct an interview with a national leader.

Bill O’Reilly opened the interview with Barack Obama by thanking him for saving the lives of a couple of Fox News reporters. That, in and of itself, is a perfectly appropriate comment. The problem is that O’Reilly is exploiting the harrowing experiences of Greg Palkot and Olaf Wiig to promote the Fox News Channel. I have yet to see Fox report on the similar experiences of CNN’s Anderson Cooper, NBC’s Richard Engle, or CBS’s Lara Logan, who was not only roughed up by thugs, but detained by Egyptian authorities. O’Reilly’s purpose was to portray Fox News as the sole network of a courageous free press.

Next O’Reilly asks Obama when Mubarak is leaving Egypt. Did he expect the President to give him a date? Then O’Reilly editorializes saying that “the longer he stays in, the more people are going to die.” Maybe so, but a real journalist wouldn’t inject his opinion into the discussion. What’s more, O’Reilly had better check with his Fox News colleagues who are clamoring for the President to support Mubarak, including their “expert” foreign policy analyst John Bolton.

O’Reilly then addresses the legal battle surrounding healthcare reform. He asked Obama about a recent Florida ruling against the bill, but ignored the fact that 12 other courts have ruled in Obama’s favor. He even ignored it after Obama pointed it out to him. To O’Reilly, the only ruling that matters is the one that serves his partisan interest.

The next question is one that tests the boundaries of satire. Somehow O’Reilly thinks it is “fair and balanced” to ask Obama to respond to a Wall Street Journal editorial that said he is “a determined man of the left whose goal is to redistribute much larger levels of income across society.” Fittingly, the President laughed at the question. The editorial was not about healthcare or taxes or the deficit. Its title is The GOP Opportunity, and it is an undisguised blueprint for Republican electoral success. And if you’re confused about the Journal’s stance on GOP victories, they clear it up in the second paragraph describing the “real source” of the Party’s “power and legitimacy” is the Tea Party. Asking Obama to respond to this is not much different than asking him to respond to Glenn Beck’s accusation that he’s a Marxist.

But O’Reilly doesn’t stop there. His next question is framed as if coming from the American people, but is really his own perspective being projected on them. He asks whether Obama is “a big government liberal who wants to intrude on their personal freedom.” Obama laughs and, quite correctly, points out that it is “a lot of folks who watch you [who] believe that.” Whereupon O’Reilly admits that “They think way worse than me.” That’s an admission that his viewers are utterly delusional and ill-informed. And apparently he doesn’t care to set them straight.

In closing, O’Reilly asked a series of questions that would have embarrassed a high school intern on Entertainment Tonight: What’s the worst part of your job? What’s the most surprising? How have you changed? Are you annoyed by people who hate you? And then there was the obligatory question on who would win the Superbowl. Even there O’Reilly could not behave professionally as he tried, unsuccessfully, to paint Obama as not knowing anything about football.

I was against the President agreeing to this interview from the moment it was announced. Not so much because I didn’t think he would comport himself well – he did. But because it gives credibility to a network that hasn’t earned any of its own. I also predicted that O’Reilly would be on his best behavior knowing that this would be an audience far larger than his measly cable news viewers. Perhaps fifty times larger. And despite his unprofessional demeanor, he didn’t do anything that could be described as scandalously controversial.

The real problem with doing an interview on Fox is that it will be sliced and diced after the fact. Fox anchors and analysts will feature every minuscule sound bite that they think they can twist into a gaffe. And they will pretend that his cogent and thoughtful responses don’t exist.

Therefore, expect the exchange regarding the Muslim Brotherhood to get marquee billing tomorrow. While Obama in no way expressed support for the group, he moderated his answer to be certain that he could not be accused of meddling in the internal affairs of the Egyptian people. His purpose was to stand up for democracy and demonstrate faith in its ability to produce a positive outcome. But the professional Obama bashers on Fox will declare that he was not sufficiently disdainful of the organization. And they will declare it over and over again.

Barack Obama on FoxIf you need any evidence of how Fox plans to report on this interview, just take a look at how Fox Nation is already framing it. Their “Pic of the Day” is a snapshot from the interview with a caption that says only “No Tie?” Apparently that’s the most important thing that the Fox Nationalists derived from the interview. O’Reilly must be so proud. And just to tie a bow around the vile community that Fox cultivates, here is what they are saying about him in the comments section:

coinguy1945: Wha a pathetic looser Omammy is an illegal nigger that need to be assaniated by a good patriot.

Bill O’Reilly is one of the biggest critics of hostile comments on blogs. He went so far as to say that Marcos Moulitsas (of DailyKos) and Arianna Huffington (of the Huffington Post) are as bad as Nazis because he found some objectionable comments on their sites. I don’t expect him to be similarly outraged by this cretin’s comment, which he was so proud of he made it twice.

Notice that the second time he even asked for “the orders” to do his dirty deed. I think he meant that for Glenn Beck.


Glenn Beck Solves The Crisis In Egypt

Posted by on February 4, 2011 at 5:42 pm. 6 Comments :

Well, we waited all week for it. Glenn Beck had promised that, after going through “chalkboards full of questions,” he would tell us the solutions to the vexing crisis in Egypt – a crisis he revealed could lead to Muslim domination of Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and the United States. (Note: Apparently South America will be spared, so you may want to brush up on your Spanish).


Beck waited until Friday to disclose his solutions, presumably to build up his faltering ratings. He has lost 40% of his audience in the past year. Unlike Beck, I won’t make you wait to learn what brilliant plans he has for the troubled region. Here is his introduction to the solutions that he and his guests presented:

Beck: We spent an hour here trying to talk about what is happening in Egypt, and we haven’t – and we’ll get into this more next week – but we haven’t talked about a solution yet. Real quick, off the top of your head, Because I don’t think we agree on a solution…your solution to what is happening in Egypt now.

Wait a minute. After building up to this for a week he wants a solution off the top of his “expert” guest’s head? And they don’t even agree on it? This better be good.

Joel Rosenberg: Well, two things for me. First the political side. The President needs to not go with the Muslim Brotherhood. He cannot play with gasoline in front of an open flame. Because if he allows…if he encourages the Islamacists to take over, this is a worst case scenario.

That’s not really a solution. It’s just a couple of things that he advises against doing. And they are things that the President is already not doing. He doesn’t suggest any action that he would affirmatively recommend, although he later says something about a spiritual plan. Perhaps he hopes to convert all the Muslims to Christianity. Next…

Zhudi Jassar: I think the solution is to come back to American principles so that we’re consistent, and we say what we mean, and we mean what we say about freedom and humanitarianism, and what we are, and to defend those entities in the Middle East. And to stand by them. And to have a long term strategy, Glenn, to start to transform the Middle East. This is the first step.

That should do it. Mean what we say and be who we are. The State Department should call this guy right away. How come Hillary Clinton didn’t think of that? At least he went on to advocate that the Muslim Brotherhood should be permitted to be legal and that their rights should not be suppressed, even while we oppose them. Next…

Damon Vickers: For solutions, we have to start walking our own talk. We need to be the change that we want to see in the world. We need to transform our own hearts, and our own minds, and be living examples in a country that is able to project the right ideals and the right values that will influence the world.

This is a profound expansion of the previous expert’s analysis. In addition to meaning what we say, we should walk our talk as well. Where have these geniuses been hiding? And what could be a more effective method of influencing Egyptian revolutionaries than offering ourselves as shining examples for them to follow. I’m sure that’s all they have been waiting for.

So far we have solutions that span the intellectual gamut from platitude to slogan. But next we have the foreign policy guru himself. The man who thinks that Bill Ayers and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are in cahoots; who likens English students angry about higher tuition fees to Egyptians fed up with three decades of dictatorship; who fears a coming insurrection inspired by a French pamphlet no one has ever heard of, much less read. Make me proud, Glenn…

Beck: I will tell you, I honestly don’t know…If I were president of the United States, I think…I wouldn’t want the Muslim Brotherhood in. I think I would just let it play out, and then just…just let it play out. And then just pull my money and support and do what you say. Go in and…ah…and…ah…make sure you’re speaking out against it. But I don’t think we have any credibility in the world anymore. Because we don’t have values and principles anymore.

You don’t know? After making us wait all week you don’t know? After berating President Obama for five days your advice is to “just let it play out?” Doing nothing? And after that continue to do nothing but speak out against it? Against what? And how can you call yourself a patriotic American if you think our country has no credibility, values, or principles?

Beck summed up his “solution” by advising his viewers to store food and find alternative sources of energy. I’m not sure what that has to do with Egypt, but it probably made his survivalist advertisers happy. He also came out in favor of rebuilding our communities. But not with community organizing. He must have some secret method of disorganized, chaotic community rebuilding he is saving for his next book. I can hardly wait for that.


Glenn Beck’s Sanity Questioned By (Almost) Everyone

Posted by on February 3, 2011 at 2:32 pm. 16 Comments :

Glenn BeckIf you are thinking about getting a net and a straight-jacket and trying to capture Glenn Beck so that he can be admitted to an asylum…..get in line.

For years Beck has been alienating even those who would be regarded as ideological allies. Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs denounced Beck as “an alcoholic, weeping, ranting, creationist talk show host who idolizes John Birchers and Ron Paul.” Eric Burns, formerly the host of Fox News’ News Watch said that he was glad that he does not “have to face the ethical problem of sharing an employer with Glenn Beck.” And former colleague Jane Hall said that Beck was a factor in her decision to leave Fox News.

But since his bizarre rendition of the events in Egypt earlier this week, Beck’s critics are rushing to disassociate themselves from him and his patently insane foreign policy delusions.

Here is just a sampling of the reviews:

Reason Magazine Senior Editor, Michael Moynihan:
This is seriously the dumbest thing ever broadcast on (non-cable access) television.

Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish Senior Editor, Conor Friedersdorf:
…Fox News Channel puts this man on the air fully understanding that large parts of his program are uninformed nonsense mixed with brazen bullshit.

U.S.News & World Report, Scott Galupo, former John Boehner aide:
The man has finally blown a gasket. His pattern-recognition machine is spewing smoke and shards of metal. In Beck’s bizarro world, the Ayatollah Khomeini and Abbie Hoffman are like the Ponch and John of anti-Americanism. All that rolling around naked in the mud at Woodstock was really a harbinger of Western women one day being forced to wear burqas.

David Frum, FrumForum:
Many people have suggested that since the crisis in Egypt began Fox News’ Glenn Beck sounds crazier than usual.

William Kristol, Editor, Weekly Standard:
[H]ysteria is not a sign of health. When Glenn Beck rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines, and lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. He’s marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s.

With all of these conservative analysts bailing out on Beck, it is notable that he still has the support of two very important people in his life: Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch. Ailes and Murdoch are toughing it out. They are amongst the last to still believe that Beck is a credible voice of conservatism. As such they must be regarded as agreeing with Beck’s fantastical theories of Muslim domination of Europe and America, and the worldwide implosion that is imminent. Remember, Beck has stated on several occasions that if anything he said was untrue, Murdoch would have fired him:

“Do you think he’s going to let a guy at five o’clock say a bunch of stuff, put this together, it’s completely wrong, and stay on the network? Do you think he became a billionaire because he’s stupid? No, so that’s not it. Because Fox couldn’t allow me to say things that were wrong.”

Neither Ailes nor Murdoch have ever disputed that statement. In fact they have both affirmed their agreement with Beck. Consequently, they must not think that there is anything wrong with what Beck is saying. Therefore, it is as if they are saying it themselves.

So if Glenn Beck is crazy, as is apparent, what does that make Ailes and Murdoch?

[Update:] Joe Klein, Time Magazine:

“I’ve heard, from more than a couple of conservative sources, that prominent Republicans have approached Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes about the potential embarrassment that the paranoid-messianic rodeo clown may bring upon their brand. The speculation is that Beck is on thin ice.”

Joe Klein is not the most reliable source, but it is encouraging to hear nonetheless. Two questions spring up: 1) Who are the “prominent Republicans” Klein references? And 2) What about the embarrassment that Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes bring upon their brand?