Spocko, Glenn Beck, and ABC
President George W. Bush's popularity has fallen to new lows, Democrats have been swept into office, and a strong majority of Americans now opposes the war in Iraq, but ABC has decided the time is right to beef up with more conservative pundits on staff and to strike out against a liberal online critic who raised questions about the network's policy of broadcasting hate radio.
Last week spotlighted ABC and its unfortunate trend toward irresponsibility, as the broadcasting giant hired Glenn Beck -- a high-profile war cheerleader known for grade-school level name-calling of Democrats -- to comment on the day's events for Good Morning America. ABC last week was also dealing with the messy fallout from its wrongheaded decision to fire off a cease-and-desist letter to a little-known blogger named Spocko who had been posting audio clips from KSFO in San Francisco, an ABC-owned talk station where hosts have advocated violence against, progressives, Muslims, and Democratic members of Congress.
ABC warned Spocko the audio clips were posted in violation of copyright laws, although it appears ABC's real concern was driven by the fact Spocko was informing advertisers about KFSO's unique brand of extremism and that blue-chip advertisers were fleeing the station in disgust.
By trying to silence a liberal critic through legal intimidation, while at the same time hiring a pro-war talker as a network commentator, ABC once again advertised its allegiance. Sadly, the Beck and Spocko developments are not unique. In recent years ABC has regularly gone out of its way to curry favor with conservative ideologues while simultaneously disrespecting Democrats and progressives.
Consider the fact ABC and its parent corporation Disney:
- Recently aired the historically inaccurate miniseries Path to 9/11, which was created by a cadre of conservative filmmakers determined to blame the Clinton administration for not preventing the 9-11 attacks.
- Employs Mark Halperin as ABC News' political director -- the same Halperin who last fall in a series of interviews with right-wing media outlets, endorsed conservative conspiracy theories that mainstream journalists are "overwhelmingly liberal," "hate the military," are "blind" to their bias, and should use the closing weeks of the campaign season to "prove" their worth to conservatives.
- Let the network's online daily newsletter, The Note, run by Halperin, evolve into a sycophantic outlet of Bush/GOP spin.
- Refused to distribute Michael Moore's award-winning documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 because the company didn't want to be associated with a product so "political," despite the fact some ABC-owned talk radio stations and ABC-syndicated radio hosts traffic, on an hourly basis, in wildly partisan and often off-the-chart hate rhetoric.
- Give chronic, professional fabricator John Stossel a national, prime-time platform, where his opinions are always aired unopposed.
- Hired Rush Limbaugh as a football analyst only to have to remove the right-wing talker from the air after Limbaugh immediately inserted unwanted racial overtones into a broadcast.
- Used bogus reporting to help relentlessly hype the phony Whitewater scandal during the Clinton administration.
So much for the liberal media.
According to long-held corporate media standards, radicals on the right are good for business, but radicals on the left are simply ... radical. (Can you imagine The New York Times-owned radio station employing fringe, left-wing hosts who fantasized on the air about assassinating Republicans?) But fair warning, the days have now passed when corporate news entities like ABC can shrug off critics who call out its shameful pandering, like hiring a hate merchant to comment on current events or trying to crush a righteous blogger.
Beck: Hurricane Katrina survivors are "scumbags"
Glenn Beck can thank another corporate media giant, Time Warner, for getting him his new ABC gig. In January 2006, Time Warner's CNN Headline News signed Beck to produce a nightly hour-long talk show. Announcing the new hire, Headline News president Ken Jautz, trying to take the edge off Beck's fringe past, described the host as "cordial" and "not confrontational." Yet the previous year, when not fantasizing about killing film maker Michael Moore ("I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it"), Beck told his listeners that Hurricane Katrina survivors trapped in New Orleans were "scumbags," and that he "hate[d]" "9-11 victims' families." He also labeled Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) the "Antichrist," accused Al Gore of being like "Hitler," and congratulated a caller to his program who claimed to have tortured prisoners in U.S. custody by saying, "I've got to tell you, I appreciate your service. ... Good for you."
Since joining the CNN family ("the most trusted name in news"), Beck has continued with his often radical, incendiary ways. For instance, he's warned that if Americans don't wake up to the dangers of the "deadly enemy that is embedded in" our ranks -- radical Islam -- that the streets of Detroit, New York, and Chicago may soon erupt in flames as part of a "global religious civil war." Indeed, Beck has waged something of his own personal jihad, declaring that if "Muslims and Arabs" don't "act now" by "step[ping] to the plate" to condemn terrorism, they "will be looking through a razor wire fence at the West." And that "Muslims who have sat on your frickin' hands the whole time" rather than "lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head" will face dire consequences.
Beck garnered headlines with his one-hour special about radical Islam, Exposed: The Extremist Agenda. The program was built around the evident notion that Muslim extremists in the Middle East hate America. (Beck interviewed former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who confirmed Exposed's obvious premise.) To help boost interest in the special, Beck, on the eve of the Exposed showing, manufactured a controversy by inviting Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, to be on the program. Beck then sandbagged Ellison by asking him, after noting that Ellison is a Muslim, a war opponent, and a Democrat, to prove that he was not "working with our enemies."
The global news outlet then rewarded Beck by promising him guest appearances on CNN's Paula Zahn Now, as well as three upcoming one-hour news specials for Headline News. This, despite the fact Beck twice emphasized during Exposed that he is not a journalist. One of Beck's upcoming news specials will focus on the "myths" of global warming, which Beck insists is a natural phenomenon and not caused by humans or the pollution they generate. That's why Beck likened Gore to a Nazi propagandist; Beck did not like An Inconvenient Truth.
Yes, Beck's cable show has done well in recent months. ("The fastest-growing talk show in cable news," cheered the New York Post.) But let's put things in perspective. The reason ratings have gone up is because there was no way they could go down. When Glenn Beck debuted on Headline News last May almost nobody watched it. During its first month, Beck attracted just 80,000 viewers in the target demographic of 25-54 year-olds. (That's out of a possible 120 million Americans, 25-54.) It would have been mathematically impossible for Beck to lose lots of viewers -- of course his ratings had to go up.
Nonetheless, he's a huge ratings hit now, right? Not exactly. Beck currently attracts fewer viewers than Phil Donahue did in the winter of 2003, when MSNBC executives fired him for having such poor ratings. (How's that for a double standard? Liberal cable talker Donahue had 440,000 viewers and got canned, but conservative cable talker Beck attracts approximately 300,000 viewers of all ages and he's promoted.)
No matter, last week ABC, no doubt impressed by the buzz surrounding Beck's ratings success, announced it was adding the right-wing talker to its payroll. "Glenn is a leading cultural commentator with a distinct voice," announced ABC's Jim Murphy, senior executive producer of Good Morning America. "At times, he is the perfect guest for many of the talk topics we cover on morning news programs." (According to this report, GMA host Diane Sawyer personally invited Beck out to lunch and offered him the job as a GMA commentator, praising him for his "common sense.")
And what better topic for Beck to discuss on GMA than Islam? Not that Good Morning America ever mentioned Beck's around-the-clock obsession with Muslims or his McCarthy-like questioning of Ellison when the wake-up program invited Beck to appear on the air last November to talk about Islam. In fact, GMA invited Beck back again in December to talk about religious controversies and once again declined to even mention Beck's previous smears. I assume that tradition of playing dumb about Beck will continue at ABC.
Simple question: If ABC execs have no qualms about hiring Beck and are not embarrassed by associating themselves with his brand of often hateful info-tainment (where Katrina survivors are "scumbags") and ABC officials are completely confident morning (i.e. female) viewers won't be turned off by Beck's right-wing agenda, then the next time Beck makes one of his paid appearance on GMA why doesn't a host simply ask Beck about wanting to kill Michael Moore, or why he called one of the most powerful female politicians in the country the Antichrist, or why the former Democratic presidential nominee reminds him of Hitler? Why doesn't ABC discuss Beck's "distinct voice" and his "common sense"?
Instead, mindful of its larger corporate reputation, ABC scrambles to camouflage the dark side of the political spectrum it has embraced in a quest for higher ratings.
ABC's KSFO: Obama's a "Halfrican"
It was that need to obscure the truth that led company attorneys to send off a cease-and-desist letter against Spocko, the self-described "5th-tier" blogger who had been contacting advertisers and informing them about the blatant hate talk being broadcast on ABC Radio's signature San Francisco talk station, KSFO, where hosts recently mocked Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as a "Halfrican," for having a white mother and a black father. (The hosts later apologized, but only after being publicly criticized for the racist remarks.) Additionally, the hosts:
- Suggested torturing and killing a Nebraskan criminal.
- Asked a caller to prove that he is not Muslim by calling Allah a "whore."
- Advocated the murder of millions of Muslims in Indonesia.
- Suggested that someone "dig ... up" late environmentalist Rachel Carson "and kill her all over again."
- Warned Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (CA) that she had "a bull's-eye painted on her big wide laughing eyes."
Rather than publicly reprimand the radical talkers and explain to them the standards of broadcasting in this country, not to mention the damage they were doing the station, ABC Inc., a subsidiary of the Disney-ABC Television Group, decided it was the anonymous blogger who needed to be shown a lesson with a strongly worded cease-and-desist letter, under the threat of copyright litigation. (According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Spocko was well within his right to post the KSFO clips under the Fair Use doctrine, which allows copyrighted material to be reproduced when used for "purposes of commentary, parody, education, or artistic expression.")
Disney's heavy-handed approach scared Spocko's Internet provider into yanking his website. But within days he was back online with another provider and this time with the full support of the liberal netroots behind him.
As Tom Siebert noted on Online Media Daily last week, "The KSFO PR debacle is the latest black eye for Disney, and another straw on the camel's back as the company nears the tipping point: being branded in the public's mind as a tool of the right wing, just as that political brand is falling out of fashion."
Make no mistake: Last week ABC and Disney proudly sided with right-wing ideologues. We'll see if the media giant soon regrets that choice.
BTW, Eric is to0 modest to talk about his great book, Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush.
That book and his series on the radio industry for Salon were a huge eye opener for me. His chapter on ABC's The Note and their editors is just chockful of info about how the inner workings of the Gang of 500.
His insight into how ABC News' political director, Mark Halperin, works is worth the price of the book alone.
Reading his book and books like the Right Wing Noise machine should be "required reading at the academy".
Throw in a few books from the folks at Center for Media and Democracy like "Best War Ever"; "Trust us we're Experts" and the classic "Toxic Sludge Is Good for You!" [link to www.prwatch.org] and you are much more able to see what is driving the "conversation" in the country.
Spocko, are you at liberty to say anything about a possible lawsuit against Disney/ABC for infringing your fair use rights? I'm sure you know it's uncharted waters, but an extremely important issue.
Also, has anyone considered that there might be an ABC or Disney personnel policy in violation at KSFO, for having a relative in direct supervision of an employee?
The reason I mention this is because a few years ago here in L.A., the classical station KUSC got in trouble because they had a disk jockey who was married to the station manager. It turns out that this was in violation of USC's personnel rules, and they got nailed on this in a related lawsuit filed by a terminated employee.
I have worked for a couple of talk radio stations in a "news" capacity, and currently work for one.
When I first started, the "news" was actually a balancing factor to the right-wing propaganda spewed most notably by Limbaugh. In 1988, he quickly became the revenue generator for the radio station for which I worked.
However, news director instructions in local newsrooms have de-generated from information you need to know into "what are people talking about at the water cooler". And one very stern rule is: do as little political news as possible. People find it boring.
In effect, talk radio stations have also degenerated... as you Spocko continually note.... into nothing more than right-wing propaganda with news departments relegated to reporting little more than fluff.
In fact, if you listen to Rush and others, they deem THEMSELVES the unbiased news sources.
The "other side" of the story is presented through the biased viewpoint of the talk show host.... who is paid to strongly represent his own viewpoint (reference the latest portrayal of Senator Boxer's questioning of Condy).
What occurs is a dishonest manipulation of the listening audience. Welcome to the pathetic information medium the electronic media has become.
Thanks for the stats on Beck. I wondered why this guy was hired by ABC. I quit watching all of CNN when they hired him at Headline news. I quit watching ABC after the 9/11 fiction was foisted on the public. I can't possibly be the only one doing this.
I have also stopped watching ABC and Disney. I have also sent them emails notifying them that I also intend to boycott their top advertisers. Does anyone have any info on who they are?
My wife and I have also been boycotting ABC/ESPN and Disney since the Path to 9/11. It sucks to not be able to go to Epcot (we live an hour away), but we just can't stomach giving them money.
I was watching the history channel last night and they were discussing the Cuban missile crisis. They had a former KGB General on who was saying that their response to photographic evidence of their lying was to just deny everything... it brought to mind our Republican friends.
Contrary to all evidence... you can lay it out chronologically, alphabetically or in order of importance and it won't make a difference. Footnotes, cross-referencing and documentation just can't stand up to their flat out denial.
I shuddered with the thought of our country moving further down that path... where ideology replaces evidence and observation. Reality is distorted by agendas of those who wish to manipulate Americans into obedience.
As I have always taught my children, never argue against something that cannot be defended. It destroys your credibility and makes you appear less than honorable. If there is a position your party has that you don't agree with, speak out!
It is only the totalitarians who demand full compliance. Remember the trumpeting of the cohesiveness of the Republican party for the past 6 years? We all knew that it was because of the strong arming of Delay... once he was gone the fractures started to appear and the Republicans with the honor of the "Watergate" era started to appear.
that the same Republicans who built their careers around downing the Soviet Communist empire now support our own federal government invading Americans' privacy in a fashion the old East German police would admire?
Disney management is just plain Goofy. They think they will draw more flies by moving a turd like Glenn Beck to their house.
As bad a Michael Eisner was in so many ways, the fact that he is now gone would appear to be more than a slight change in the nature of the Government over at the Wholly Rodent Empire.
The inner political workings at the Old Kremlin or the Chinese are no less obscure. Perhaps like the old Kremlin watchers who tried to make sense of the tealeaves of who was in what picture, the blogosphere needs similar experts to watch the tealeaves at the many Corporate headquarters, that have no less effect than the Kremlin.
What a sad commentary. The big three networks have distanced themselves from real journalism, where they used to thrive, and now desperately struggle for relevancy and even survival. If I could speed their descent to oblivion, I would; I did what I could long ago by withdrawing as a viewer or a listener.
apragmatist
The following is a direct quote from Publication 557 of the Internal Revenue Service. Don'' kevetch when your non- profit status is pulled. You don't deserve one, under the law.
Besides you are just spouting nonsense. Which you can do just don't seek the favorite status that real "legal" non-profits are entitled to.
"Political activity. If any of the activities (whether or not substantial) of your organization consist of participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, your organization will not qualify for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3). Such participation or intervention includes the publishing or distributing of statements.
Whether your organization is participating or intervening, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office depends upon all of the facts and circumstances of each case. Certain voter education activities or public forums conducted in a non-partisan manner may not be prohibited political activity under section 501(c)(3), while other so-called voter education activities may be prohibited. "
Who are you "warning" with this weak threat? Spocko, Eric B., or MMFA? This reminds me of the unsolicited letters I get at home whenever one of my letters to the Editor is published. BTW, I'm a proud Texas liberal, and we're going to take back the Lone Star State.
make sure you made this notation to the Swift Boat vets who primarily were funded and operated from your beloved state of Texas?
I didn't think so.
Have you sent the same notification to Brent Bozell's "Accuracy in the Media"?
I didn't think so.
You are a tool.
CBS recently forced YouTube to remove a video I posted on the Spocko matter. I posted a report from KPIX San Francisco in which they showed the whole Spocko issue. Ironically the report on Spocko's denial of Fair Use posting of audio resulted in the video I posted being removed for copyright violations. I still have the original video. If anyone is interested in hosting the video please post a note in the comments which I will check over the next couple of days.
I'll post the video, no problem. I was going to do a bit of remodeling at my website anyway. Let me know.
Screw the MSM television stations. Bunch of traitors.
Contact me: Paul Revere webmaster@grassrootsusa.com
A rather narrow point to observe in the subject matter here, regarding the person "Spocko", and the remarkable thing he did and the chain of events he initiated:
It's mentioned how ABC, as parent company of KSFO (ultimately the child of Disney Corp.), that they sent a "cease-and-desist letter to a little-known blogger named Spocko" which "...warned Spocko the audio clips were posted in violation of copyright laws".
Of course, what is here referred to as a "cease-and-desist letter" is simply somebody telling somebody else that they claim "intellectual property rights" to something...
It's not necessarily true, it's just a claim is all, despite the serious and official sound of "cease and desist" (which is often used to describe a Court Order, which the letter is not).
My point being, that Spocko's use of the audio clips is not necessarily any violation in the least, of Copyright Law... which is of course a kind of law where regular citizens become the cops (there being no Law enforcement authority to call... only the Courts to petition).
Spocko didn't sell or lease or generate any money at all from the clips in question (as "pirates" do)...
Neither do the clips in question have any sale value or re-sale value at all (unlike music recordings)...
The clips in question are not only just talk on the radio, but on publicly broadcast radio... on the People's airwaves.
They were nothing sold to anyone at all in the first place, nor anything licensed or leased (as music recordings are)...
Just talk, on broadcast radio, on the People's airwaves... having no sale value, or lease or license value, in the first place, and having no re-sale value either of course.
Not sold by KSFO in the first place, and not re-sold by Spocko in the second place (as who would buy such stuff, even if it were for sale?).
Again, ABC's letter claiming some kind of ownership of intellectual property was only that, a claim... and a weak one at that, seeing as the thing in question is being broadcast on the public People's airwaves and has no re-sale value (as does music recordings), and besides which, the guy Spocko wasn't re-selling anything anyway (it's hard to sell something that has no sale value).
I say the the guy had, and has, every right to do everything thing he did... and that whatever Disney or ABC says doesn't count for much or anything at all in this matter...
A Judge, in a Court of Law, has all the say and all the Authority, in claims of Copyright violation...
...not a stupid letter, that may or may not use the words "cease and desist".
Why is no one upset about what ABC employee Paul Harvey said during his Monday noon "newscast" this week? (Jan 15) Go to his website, and start listening at 6:45 into the show. He slowly compares the residents of Denver and how they are dealing with the blizzards to the victims of the Katrina floods. PLEASE listen to it ! You see, according to Mr. Harvey, one group sucked it up, worked hard, and helped each other. They didn't "loot" either. But one group demanded handouts, free vouchers, free housing. The racial overtones were breathtaking! And he is doing this on MLK Jr Day, of all days! PLEASE spread the word about this amazing broadcast - it deserves widespread attention, and I am doing everything I can to get everyone to hear it. Listen, and if you are blown away as I am about his racist, insensitive, and ridiculous comments, please spread the word.
It turns out that the Paul Harvey commentary was a slightly altered version of a racist email that has been passed around since 2005. The only change Paul Harvey made was to change the disaster location from North Dakota to Denver.
You can read about it at the urban legends reference site snopes.com: [link to www.snopes.com]
If you compare the Paul Harvey commentary to the original racist myth described at snopes you will find that they are virtually identical.
I use Snopes.com all the time at work when well-meaning (or not) coworkers send me email.
Thanks for mentioning the Paul Harvey thing. I had no idea he was like that. I had just been sent the recent version of that email about Denver not asking for FEMA, just like Harvey was saying. The funny (odd, not haha) thing is that the lawmakers of Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas had all been asking for FEMA assistance for the blizzards. I have been hearing callers in to right wing talk shows saying they were from these states saying the exact same stuff, that their states had not called for FEMA insinuating that they were tough, independent folks who could fend for themselves unlike those terrible people in New Orleans. But they are lying. Their states did ask for federal help. Paul Harvey: bigot.
[link to cbs4denver.com]
a major portion of Denver's infrastructure was not entirely WIPED OUT on a large-scale basis.
It was buried under a large amount of snow that can and will be eventually plowed away. It was not taken down and away by large torrents of water.
Denver's police department was not fractured into pieces along with their communications infrastructure, vehicles, and facilities.
I've heard arguments such as yours thousands of times already, and there is absolutely no correlation to the scale and size of damage caused by Hurricane Katrina when compared to the recent Midwest snow and ice storms.
So, if you want to continue to engage in absolutlely absurd arguments to propogate a politically motivated... and perhaps racist... argument, be our guest. But don't expect to be taken seriously.
Take a deep breath. Maybe listen to some soothing music. After your blood pressure has descended into the normal range go back and read the thread. Note that we're talking about a Paul Harvey broadcast. Read the link at snopes.com. You'll find that the whole point of the thread is that we agree with you. Paul Harvey's comments were despicable.
From snopes: "one can shovel snow, but one cannot shovel water".
Does anyone have any specific information regarding "fair use" when it comes to media? As I recall, when it came to books, "fair use" was a teacher/professor photocopying several pages from a book and distributing them in a class, but when it comes to audio/video, is there anything similar?
The problem, as I see it - with copyright and intellectual property laws is that they're so convoluted and subject to interpretation that the parties involved spend more time litigating than anything else. (Or, for someone who can't afford high-powered legal representation, even a threat of litigation is enough for them to back off.
I posted something above, on the whole Spocko thing, and in particular on the attempt to silence or intimidate his petitioning of radio advertisers/sponsors, by way of claiming that he infringes on a Copyright, when he records and posts on the internet, parts of radio broadcasts (broadcasts that have no sale value I can imagine... and besides which, he isn't re-selling anything or generating any money from those recordings), in order to back up his claims, in his petitions, as to what is being broadcast.
And this post to which I'm responding asks about "fair use" in matters of Copyrighted materials.
And I love the Internet Wire.
It's as extraordinary a source of information as can be found in the world today, to regular people such as me... in particular, the information that can be found (near instantly) regarding the administration of our government, the workings of our Congress, the opinions of our Supreme Judicial Court, and all the laws of our land...
Here is the Copyright Law of the U.S. [link to www.copyright.gov] Title 17 specifically.
You'll find both pdf and text files for all of Title 17's chapters... download the whole thing, study it at your leisure, become as smart as any lawyer...
I love the Internet Wire.
Chapter 1 of Title 17 (Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright), Section 107...
Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
(Please note closely that phrase, "Limitations on exclusive rights")
[Abridged] ...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means ...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Heck, that's all I'll include here... it sounds like the Law is on Spocko's side, and why not... it was an awesome thing he did, and any person can do such a thing too, easily... I liked it primarily because it got ACTION, and yet involved nothing more than fact and truth...
And I know that Copyright judgements are the judgements of a Judge, and not of any claimant, or their lawyer... or even some anonymous guy on the Internet Wire, such as me.
And I was glad I looked up the Copyright Law, and the "fair use" Section... I was glad the above post made the inquiry that made me curious.
And I love the Internet Wire.
(I swear, this is the wire that we wrap around that beast's throat, and strangle the life out of it... that "media" beast... this Internet Wire.)
Dem2020:
Thanks for the info - As I've always understood the "fair use" thing - it's as you describe - that content can be used in an essentially non-profit environment (very loosely summarized) - my question was if there were specific "durations" for media (audio/video). The last time I dug into copyright law was to read the sections regarding the "transfer" of copyrights - and that was to gain a better understanding of the (still outstanding) IBM-SCO Linux/Unix court case.
The problem, as I see it, is that companies can afford high-powered lawyers and produce threats - and ISPs, etc will be scared of potential (expensive) litigation. I agree with your assessment regarding Spocko.
It's interesting - but I watch a lot of those TV small claims court shows and I've learned quite a bit from them...
Thanks again for your comments, I do appreciate them!
Is Glenn Beck inflammatroy? Of course. He's an ENTERTAINER seeking attention and to stir up controversy. But no one views him as a journalist. Half of what he says is tongue and cheek - designed to be provocative and outrageous - whether realistic or not. But when you pretend that the mainstream media is not "overwhelmingly liberal," your credibility is even less than Mr. Beck's. Granted, while some of what he says is outrageous and innapropriate, some of it is not.
For example, there is NO denying the current strain of Islam is a great danger to the entire world, especially the US. I am American, hence I care mainly about the US and what is good for me, my family and my country. If slaughtering (or torturing) radical jihadists makes my family safer, the choice is easy -- its time for some muslims to go meet the promised virgins. While I hope a more peaceful solution can be attained, that is far from clear.
Yes, Glenn Beck's position on global warming is laughably dishonest, but so is Michael Moore's position on virtually every issue he addresses. The difference is, most people understand that Beck is there for entertainment purposes only while Moore tries to masquerade as a serious filmmaker making important documentaries; truth be damned.
Let's see how this works when we put the shoe on the other foot.
But when you pretend that the mainstream media is not "overwhelmingly liberal," your credibility is even less than Mr. Beck's
Actually, the media wasn't being "overwhelmingly liberal". It was just being ENTERTAINING. So I guess you have nothing to complain about, right?
Glenn Beck is an "entertainer" in the same way that Andrew "Dice" Clay was: he insults people and people's intelligence. If he wants to use a mile-wide brush to paint all Muslims, that's bigotry, not humor. Did you also laugh when he insulted families who lost loved ones on 9/11?
You're right about one thing--he is not a journalist. So why did he get his own show on CNN and also get hired by ABC for their morning news program? Can you name one liberal "entertainer" who has been offered similar positions? I submit this as Exhibit A for my case that the MM is not "overwhelmingly liberal."
Finally, can you name one thing that Michael Moore got wrong in his documentaries? If you can, I believe there is a monetary award for such an achievement. If you can't, it's pretty obvious why you would defend Glenn Beck.
Hey, enough with the "Katrina survivors are scumbags" and "I hate 9/11 victims" type quotes! :) It will add to your credibility if you provide some context if you need to keep bringing those things up.
I've listened to the actual radio shows, and the "scumbags" that Glenn was talking about were clearly the people that were shooting at helicopters -- not all Katrina victims!
Also, the 9/11 victim thing was only a select few that he was tired of, that were giving a bad name to the rest.
The Clinton Anti-christ thing was pure comedy. Reading a transcript it may not be apparent, but if you listen to the show, you'll laugh.
Anyway, for each of these quotes, I urge you to listen to the actual show. You can make anyone look bad by taking small bits of what they say and not providing context.
Hiring Beck is like putting a rattlesnake inside someone's mailbox. Such venomous verbosity violates responsible journalism; it is typical of the assumption that most people in this country have 8-year old mentalities. To call victims of a tragedy, "scumbags," or to liken Al Gore to Hitler, is so outre it should be countered by responsible reportage. Instead, ABC rewards such hate talk by abetting a person who is a true scumbag and Nazi-lover, and no doubt a member of the KKK. That must be the Snow White tie-in for this Mickey Mouse company.
After pitching my cable box in 2003 I have been stuck with the 'Big 3' for the news. It has been interesting to watch what appears to be a disturbing trend. Since then, on an almost daily occurrence, all 3 networks evening news programs show 3 or 4 of the exact same stories. It is if they receive a sort of a daily 'play book' from the Pentagon. Now some of these are obvious headline reports, but others are often obscure, non-relevent human interest stories that the odds of all 3 networks running them are quite low. It does seem they are under some sort of controlling influence.
The idea the media has a 'liberal' bias is absurd. It should be a requirement that all the Limbaughs and Becks of the world watch the movie V for Vendetta and see where they are positioned in a scenario where the people have had enough. The escalation of events around the world are leading the populace to wake up and smell the manure. The idea that was spelled out in that movie about how the U.S. had it all and threw it away and wound up embroiled in an all-out civil war is a realistic possibility. The talking head cheerleaders will have to run for cover.
There is absolutely no excuse for the behavior of the news media in the past few years. Lap dogs they all are.
It is most disturbing that ABC has seen fit to threaten the blogger Spocko for publicizing the vicious remarks made by your on-air personalities and, more basically, that your network condones such vitriol. He is right to contact your advertisers, and your claims of copyright infringement are ridiculous. If he brought you a larger audience and more advertising revenue you would probably shower him with praise. I used to think that the nation's three major networks made at least some attempt to avoid inflammatory partisan rhetoric, but that is far from the case at ABC where mindless, low-level chit-chat from people like Michele Malkin, Glenn Beck and other truly despicable commentators seems to be encouraged. This isn't simply an issue of freedom of speech but rather the parameters decent people expect regarding what amounts to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. There is so much anger and violence in the world already; some of the comments made on your broadcasts only serve to trigger the base impulses of unbalanced, uninformed listeners. Beck's interview with Representative Ellison, a man whose family has been in this country since the 1700s, was a disgrace. To use him as a bogey man to promote national fears about terrorism and immigration was ludicrous and insulting. No-one expects every TV personality to be brilliant but at the very least the viewing/listening public does expect a modicum of intellectual integrity. I, too, intend to contact your advertisers and let them know that their support of your sub-standard broadcasting ethics will influence my buying habits.
Media Matters writes letters and threatens all the time.
So someone fights back, albeit rather weakly. and you people whine about it.
Raise some money and hire Spocko a lawyer.
EFF has undertaken to assist with (any) legal proceedings; of course, there won't BE any, for as shown here and in earlier discussion, Disney would be laughed out of court at any attempt to pursue the matter in such fashion.
Worse, they might then be counter-sued, and your stock would then plummet at revelation to the larger public of their attempted suppression of dissent; and the underlying hate speech which engendered said dissent.
MICKEY MOUSE IS A RIGHT WING EXTREMIST!!!!
The fundamental rule with freedom of the press is that you do not have freedom of the press unless you own or control a press. At the present time virtually all of our brodcast media are owned by 6 corporate conglomorates, whose excecutives are conservative Republicans and who have a strong interest in keeping conservative Republicans in power because their economic policies greatly enrich them. This explains the pervasive right wing bias that currently dominates our broacast media. At the present time the American people do not have freedom of the press in the broadcast media. Only a few corporate conglomorates do.
What is needed to restore freedom of the press to the people, rather than a small number of corporate conglomorates, is to force these conglomorates to divest themselves of a large part of their broadcast media and strictly limit the number of stations that any one corporation can own.
introduce race into monday night football, he proved himself completely uneducated about the game by saying that donavan mcnabb was only playing because he was black. he's one of the better quarterbacks out there.
If Glen Beck is rubbing you the wrong way then it's probably from having your head in the sand. Is it "warm and fuzzy" listening to him??? Of course not - it is frightening but it is also reality. If you can't see that Islam is a very DIRE ENEMY who needs to be dealt with than you are doomed!
who happen to be Muslim, would be interested in how you consider them a "DIRE ENEMY".
Should I tell them they are nothing but "terrorists waiting to be unleashed" or something?
Please explain.