LAT on "Beck's flawed gold standard": Beck would be "lucky if" he's not judged as he does "his own adversaries"
December 09, 2009 5:48 am ET by Media Matters staff
From the December 9 Los Angeles Times article, titled, "Glenn Beck's flawed gold standard":
Radio and TV host Glenn Beck likes to talk about the potential collapse of the American economy. He also likes to talk about buying gold as a hedge against the unknown.
The proximity of those ideas, the plethora of gold ads around his Fox program and Beck's work as a paid pitchman for one gold firm have some in the media wondering whether the conservative commentator has a conflict of interest.
Since conflicts are in the eye of the beholder, Beck should consider himself lucky if the public doesn't judge him by the where-there's-smoke-there's-fire standard he uses to condemn his own adversaries.
Previously:
Glenn Beck promotes gold to audience while profiting from gold investment firms
Okay...in the interest of full disclosure, why not have Glenn Beck release his financial statements demonstrating how much of his wealth is held in gold?
Okay. Glenn Beck discoses how much of his wealth is in gold, and MMfA discloses how much of their funding is in gold. Now that is fair.
Here is how they are funded.
Media Matters has repeatedly defended themselves against this accusation, but I know you all have your panties in a wad over this, so I am just curious.
Why are we suppose to care?
It is wrong, just like it is wrong to provide reproductive choices and care to women.
It is wrong, just like it is wrong to ask for equality regardless of sexual orientation.
We are all just a bunch of devilish miscreants.
"Media Matters has never received funding from progressive philanthropist George Soros."
What difference does it make where Media Matters gets it's funding from? Their function is to point out the misinformation, and from what I have read, they have done a thorough job at refuting claims from the right.
I don't care who funds these organizations. I care about the message. Glenn Beck is a gold pitchman who uses his program to pitch gold. That's what commercials are for, not his show, so there is a blurring of lines. That would be like Sam Waterson pitching Old Glory Insurance on Law & Order...
------------------------------------------------
The Midnight Review
So, what conflict of interest would it uncover if we were to see the funding for MMFA. Weaselly?
How would it uncover a conflict of interest for a group that doesn't advocate for any political party or candidate (or any person at all!), unlike Beck, who clearly DOES advocate for one of his advertisers? How is it relevant that George Soros gave money to one group that later funded MMFA with other monies? What conflict of interest could that possibly expose?
See, that's the problem with your analogy, Weaselly. It doesn't work because we're looking at apples and oranges. And it doesn't work except as a troll post to derail the thread away from talking about how Beck would be lucky if he's not judged by the same standards he uses to judge others.
You didn't want us to talk about how Beck is a hypocrite. I'm just sorry that so many people let you drag them down the rabbit hole with you.
That being a principle that they apparently hold dear...here's the fundamental question:
Why doesn't mmfa disclose their own funding sources?
Just come out and say that Soros funds some of mmfa. It will make you feel better as I am sure you drank the kool aid that anything Soros has his hand in, is a socialist, commie, fascist enterprise. Feel free to add any more descriptive word that your little right wing crackpot heart desires.
Let me add to the question...why won't they disclose their funding sources...what have they got to hide?
Why is everyone ducking the question...it's pretty simple...why won't mmfa disclose their funding?
Honestly, I haven't a clue what you're on about.
Let me spell it out for you wesley, as others have tried to do.
MMfA is a media watchdog. They criticise all sources of misinformation, be it from Fox, or from MSNBC. They do not editorially advocate, insight, or organize for any political agenda. They do not create lies and dispense them like candy. As such, there can be no conflict of interest if they accept funds from Greenpeace, or Soros, or from the Democratic Party.
If you do some checking around you will find that when MMfA asks for disclosure of funding they are refering to organizations or websites that present themselves as being "grassroots" or non-partisan in origin. However if those entities propagate lies and misinformation, insight, or organize for a particular political agenda, then financial disclosure could reveal that the funding comes directly from an industry that benefits from their advocacy.
For example,an organization claiming to be non-partisan or grassroots that advocates against climate change legislation using misinformation or distorted "facts" might be funded by the oil, gas, and coal industry. That would constitute a conflict of interest that contradicts claims of grassroots support or non-partisanship.
Now you know all of that already, wesley. What you are trying to do is cast MMfA as a corrupt, partisan, activist organization that is directly involved in anti-American advocacy and that it is funded by communists, Marxists, fascists, socialists, athiests, homosexuals, and organized crime syndicates: all of whom directly benefit from MMfA's political agenda.
Contrast Beck, a for-profit commentator whose comments, without disclaimer, logically impact positively his for-profit sponsor.
Apples and oranges.
Then you should have no problem supporting mmfa to disclose their funding...in following the same standards that they require of others.
Oh for crying out loud, don't you know that Soros is the devil incarnate? He's one of those commie, fascist, pinko, socialist guys.
Geesh
They're nearly all like this now. Just listen to AM hate radio and you'll see what I mean. This is a major scam and the more fear and loathing they promote on the air, in their books, movies, etc., the richer they get. These guys are cleaning up in the fear and loathing industry.
It's intriguing that it's gold itself that's making them rich. They're something symbolic, kind of biblical, about that. It's also a bit unpatriotic since it's a direct attack on the U.S. dollar.
And Beck is a hypocrite for holding others to standards that he himself can't live up to.
And MMFA isn't a news organization, Weaselly - they're a progressive organization that supports the debunking of conservative misinformation. When you can explain how their behavior exhibits any conflict of interest and any hypocrisy (as Beck surely does here), then get back to us.
Until that time, all you're trying to do is derail a thread that should be talking about how hypocritical Beck is.
Yes, of course Beck is a hypocrite, that is not news to anyone. Almost all the pundits are.
The issue here is that Beck advocates buying gold on his show (directly and indirectly), he is a paid spokesperson of a gold association, and he owns gold. But he doesn't tell you that.
The value of gold is directly tied to demand for gold. If Beck buys gold by the truckload, then convinces a million people to buy gold, the value of his gold might double. If he can instill fear in a government collapse, etc, he might even be able to create a run on gold.
No matter where MMFA gets its money from, it doesn't directly increase its own wealth (or the wealth of those sources) in the course of its day-to-day business, by taking advantage of its audience.
IT'S NOT THE SAME THING.
He was trying to derail a thread away from us talking about the hypocrisy of Beck and his conflict of interest.
Once that behavior was exposed, suddenly he stopped posting.
I swear, many posters here need to have better troll post radar - not you.