About us Login Get email updates
Eric Boehlert
Print

CNN's rodeo clown

May 08, 2007 1:20 pm ET

So you can feast on your stories but it won't stop the bleeding
When the truth is found the houses surely fall down
There's blood on their mouths of all lies and liars
The bloody red eyes of the rodeo clown

--John Mellencamp, "Rodeo Clown"

The bad news last week was that Glenn Beck, the right-wing radio talker and self-described "rodeo clown" who broadcasts nightly on CNN Headline News, hosted a world-is-flat special about the "myths" surrounding global warming. In it, Beck rounded up the usual ban of discredited, oil industry-friendly "experts" who announced that the looming atmospheric crisis is overblown, and that far from being a consensus, serious scientists still disagree on the matter.

The good news was that Beck's special, "Exposed: Climate of Fear," was a commercial flop, finishing dead last in total viewers among CNN, Headline News, Fox News, and MSNBC programs that night. The weak showing simply highlighted Beck's recent, albeit little-discussed, ratings woes. Just months after being hyped as the fastest-growing prime-time program in cable news, Glenn Beck has become arguably the most stagnant prime-time program in cable news.

For CNN, the repercussions of the backslide are immense and go far beyond the advertising dollars and cents involved.

That's because whereas CNN last year traded away its good name in exchange for debuting Beck's factually challenged and hateful brand of broadcasting, at least CNN execs were getting a ratings boost out of the Faustian bargain. Today, Beck's still making a mockery out of CNN's reputation on a daily basis, as he disparages liberals, gays, Democrats, blacks, immigrants, and Muslims at will. But in return, CNN's now stuck with a Beck program that's trapped in neutral and shows signs of sliding into reverse.

Well played, CNN.

"I'm a rodeo clown who happens to have a radio and TV show," Beck recently announced. Beck uses the rodeo clown shtick relentlessly (it's listed under "occupation" on his MySpace page), as he works overtime to assure viewers he's an undereducated, unsung hero with no journalism background. He's just an Average Joe who, by the way, produces 60-minute, prime-time news specials for CNN.

In truth, rodeo clowns are distracters. They bring attention to themselves by causing loud, outlandish scenes so that dismounted bull riders can reach safety. So in that regard, yes, Beck is a rodeo clown; a professional distracter.

For instance, just prior to the "Climate of Fear" telecast, Beck not only compared Al Gore to Adolf Hitler (an attack the Anti-Defamation League labeled "outrageous, insensitive and deeply offensive"), but he also warned that global warming activists want the United Nations to run the world and to implement a "global carbon tax." (Even though "Climate of Fear" aired nearly 10 weeks later than originally scheduled, it still had a rushed, amateurish feel to it. It doesn't appear as though CNN sent out any review copies in advance.)

Adding insult to injury for the CNN news family was the fact that Beck's special directly insulted the news channel's integrity. How? Beck did it when hyping "Climate of Fear" by stressing that Americans weren't getting the "other side" of the global warming story, in part because of the "mainstream media hype" surrounding the issue. Beck clearly suggested that journalists at CNN, among other places, were doing such a dreadful (read: biased) job reporting about global warming, that Beck had to step in and provide the "other side" of the debate (read: the truth).

It was Beck simply echoing the right-wing canard that the liberal media deliberately keep the truth from the masses. CNN not only approved of Beck's message, the news channel actively promoted it. (If CNN wanted to get into the business of producing "other side" specials, it should have aired one in February 2003, looking at the "other side" of the pro-war push. That would have saved CNN much future embarrassment regarding Iraq.)

"Climate of Fear" certainly wasn't journalism, not even the pseudo-brand often practiced on cable television. It was more like anti-journalism. Instead of trying to enlighten and educate consumers about the day's events, it was a deliberate attempt to mislead viewers under the guise of being informational and under the auspice of television news. It was foolery, plain and simple. Specifically, it was an attempt to re-assure partisans about global warming, to import pleasing facts into their hermetically sealed worldview of what's right and wrong. All done by Beck, a former top-40 DJ and proud non-journalist.

It truly has become amateur hour at CNN.

James Zogby got it right late last year. After watching Beck's nearly year-long McCarthy-like crusade against Arabs and Muslims, the president of the Arab American Institute wrote, "While [the CNN] network may have hoped that Beck's flamboyant style would increase ratings, the cost to their integrity has been staggering."

I realize lots of executives, producers and reporters at CNN likely cringe at the mention of Beck's name and claim it's unfair to connect CNN with Beck; that the Headline News personality has nothing to do with the larger global news network. I don't buy it. The fact remains that Beck is invited onto CNN shows, including most recently Paula Zahn Now and Anderson Cooper 360. Also, CNN programs pitched in to hype Beck's recent global warming hoax special.

CNN cannot be a little bit pregnant here. It pays Beck a salary. He's a centerpiece for Headline News' prime-time schedule, and CNN helps promote his program. The painful part now for CNN is that Beck's show is no longer attracting new viewers, which makes the news organization's decision to give him a national platform all the more embarrassing.

Indeed, the dirty little media secret is that Beck's show has hit a ratings brick wall. Despite the glowing press from The New York Times and The Washington Post, among others, which showered Beck with profiles because his show was being touted as the fastest-growing program on prime-time cable news, Beck in recent months has been flat-lining. In fact, he's actually losing viewers.

The Nielsen rating numbers from April were particularly telling and highlighted how Beck's show appears to have completely maxed out less than 12 months after its debut. April was a news-heavy month, which produced a huge spike in cable news viewership following the campus massacre at Virginia Tech. Except, that is, for Glenn Beck. (On the night of the VT shooting, Glenn Beck finished last among prime-time cable news programs, excluding those on CNBC.)

Overall, for the month of April, ratings for CNN Headline News' prime-time lineup, which is anchored by Beck, were up a microscopic 4 percent, compared to healthy, double-digit gains posted by CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC.

A hot show? Please, Glenn Beck has become as cool as the other side of the pillow. For the month of April, Glenn Beck's original airing in the 7 p.m. time slot averaged 304,000 viewers, down from last September, when the program drew 321,000 viewers each night. In viewers aged 25-54, the key demographic group sought by advertisers, Glenn Beck averaged 122,000 last month. Again, that's down from September, when the program drew 149,000. So much for the being "the fastest-growing show on cable news," which was how Beck himself described the program earlier this year.

Last September was also when Glenn Beck surpassed MSNBC's Hardball in viewers 25-54, outpacing Chris Matthews' show by 17,000 viewers. No more. In April, Hardball beat Glenn Beck by 40,000 viewers in the 25-54 demographic each night. And often the tally these days is far larger. For instance, on Tuesday, May 1, Hardball bested Glenn Beck by nearly 200,000 total viewers. And with the presidential election season heating up, it's unlikely that trend toward the Beltway-centric Hardball and away from Glenn Beck is going to change in the coming weeks and months.

As for the 9 p.m. time slot, in which Glenn Beck is replayed each weeknight, the show has done very little to boost Headline News' ratings. Back in June 2005, the channel, by simply looping its recap of daily headlines, was averaging 321,000 viewers each night. In April, despite all the hype about Beck's supposed ratings surge, that 9 p.m. number at Headline News had barely budged, to 328,000 viewers.

More proof of Beck's woes? Last November, Beck did hit a ratings home run with his first-ever, hour-long special, "Exposed: The Extremist Agenda." (The show pounded the evident notion that there are Muslim extremists in the Middle East who hate America.) For the 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. time slots combined, Beck's special attracted nearly two million viewers. CNN rewarded Beck by giving him four more specials this year.

"Glenn's unique style works well for his everyday show format, but giving him a full hour on just one topic really gives him the chance to delve deeper, in a way that clearly resonates with his viewers," cooed Ken Jautz, executive vice president of CNN Worldwide. "We look forward to hearing what Glenn has to say on these timely and provocative issues."

Last Wednesday's "Climate of Fear" marked the first of that new batch of Beck programs, and ratings were down a whopping 70 percent from Beck's November special. In fact, Beck's widely promoted "Climate of Fear" finished in last place at both 7 p.m. and 9 p.m., losing to the regularly scheduled cable news offerings on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.

Given that weak showing, I'm not surprised that suddenly CNN is much less talkative about Beck's ratings. Whereas last winter the channel was issuing press releases touting Beck's healthy gains, CNN last week declined my request for any ratings information regarding Beck's recent performance.

If Beck doesn't right his ratings ship soon, CNN's going to have to hire another rodeo clown just to distract people from fact that the news channel traded in its reputation for a last-place show.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mr. l (May 08, 2007 1:27 pm ET)
         

      and SHE can be the idiot, fear-mongering, racist prick on C(ertainly) N(ot) N(ews)...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tommy (May 08, 2007 1:36 pm ET)
         

      If ratings are irrelevant on the way "up", as many posters here suggest, then aren't they equally as irrelevant on the way "down"?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by RedRightHand (May 08, 2007 1:45 pm ET)
           

        The well known concept of "Salad Days," I believe indicates that a change may show success and gains initially, and eventually then drop off and perhaps even plummet.

        Thus, while Beck might've gotten steadily rising ratings for his first year, any drop-offs during and after are very telling. People want to see something new, give it a little try ... then decide they don't like it and drop it.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (May 08, 2007 1:50 pm ET)
             

          My point is that many here always say that higher ratings, particularly by conservatives, mean nothing - they are no indicator of truth or quality. Well, if that's the case, then a decline in ratings is no indicator either.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by spooky3 (May 08, 2007 1:58 pm ET)
               

            He thinks Beck is of low quality, or worse (e.g., offensive) regardless of ratings.

            His point seems to be that, while some (not Boehlert) might argue that a network can and/or should tolerate low quality or offensiveness in a show, if the show is bringing in the audience and consequently advertising $, what could possibly be the justification for retaining the show, if it is not?

            Report Abuse
          • Author by wesley (May 08, 2007 2:16 pm ET)
               

            Tommy - your point

            Well said...and on the money.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (May 08, 2007 2:28 pm ET)
               

            Beck was full of crap when his ratings were high, and he's equally full of crap now that his ratings are low. Audience share is no indicator of truthfulness, as Rush Limbaugh has demonstrated for years.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by Brian in FL (May 08, 2007 3:34 pm ET)
               

            Wrong. High ratings are no indicator of honesty, and neither are low ratings.

            You seem to be willfully ignoring the point of this post, which is that CNN continues to promote Beck, despite the fact that he is tarnishing their reputation, and despite the fact that he can't even bring in viewers. It's not even a wise business decision to keep Beck.

            Headline News would do just as well ratings-wise looping their news over and over again, so it makes one wonder why they even keep Beck, let alone promote him endlessly.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by Rick Massimo (May 08, 2007 4:22 pm ET)
               

            The idea was that Beck was a little rough, maybe, but an unvarnished truth-teller who was one of the people and said what was on their minds. And if that were true, someone would be watching it.

            When your only - only - claim to fame is your connection to "the people," and you lose that, you're done.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (May 09, 2007 12:38 am ET)
               

            "My point is that many here always say that higher ratings, particularly by conservatives, mean nothing - they are no indicator of truth or quality. Well, if that's the case, then a decline in ratings is no indicator either." --Tommy

            You seem to have conveniently forgotten that conservatives on these boards often suggest ratings ARE an indication of truth or quality. Of course this is a well-known logical fallacy as is the idea that a lack of ratings is an indicator of inferiority.

            The problem Beck has is that his show has low ratings AND is very low quality as well. It appears that there is little to no evidence to indicate any quality of Beck's show while MMFA is steadily compiling evidence of Beck's show's inferiority.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by monknj80 (May 08, 2007 2:16 pm ET)
           

        It's just fun to see one of these guys go down. Especially when it's thorugh ratings. That means the people are watching and deciding that the guys a moron who doesn't deserve their attention.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by ChristianDemocrat (May 08, 2007 3:39 pm ET)
           

        Boehlert or "many posters?" If Boehlert, then "many posters" (no offense to whoever they are) doesn't seem like much of an authority. If "many posters," could you please reference the prior posting(s); I think you're oversimplifying the assertion.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 08, 2007 1:42 pm ET)
         

      "Market Forces" will compel CNN to cancel this buffoon....right?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (May 08, 2007 1:51 pm ET)
           

        I would guess if his ratings and demographics are at unacceptable levels to the "bottom-liners" at CNN, he will be replaced.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by conleytgwinn (May 08, 2007 4:49 pm ET)
             

          Yes! I am certain that Michelle Malkin would welcome the exposure - a full hour of prime-time - and her scripts are already written in her blogging. Anne might even agree to co-host from time to time, but no more than weekly: she has that nasty little Florida thing with illegal voter registration to iron out before she can undertake long-term commitment to anything more substantial.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by zappatero (May 08, 2007 1:48 pm ET)
         

      Beck needs to prove to us he's not working with the terrorists.......then we'll watch.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by monknj80 (May 08, 2007 2:18 pm ET)
           

        Kudos for saying it first.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 08, 2007 2:30 pm ET)
           

        Beck needs to prove that he's not working for the GOP. Let's see those bank deposit records.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by jeter2 (May 08, 2007 1:54 pm ET)
         

      "That's because whereas CNN last year traded away its good name in exchange for debuting Beck's factually challenged and hateful brand of broadcasting..."

      Newsflash!

      CNN traded away their good name and credibility years ago. With Beck they were trying to regain ratings, nothing more, nothing less.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by soros (May 08, 2007 2:27 pm ET)
         

      They could always offer Rush Limbaugh that time slot.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pjcarter (May 08, 2007 2:29 pm ET)
         

      Q #1: The quality of Beck's program is already poor. Q#2: And now the quantity of viewers has flatlined.

      Good. Let's get this idiot off my TV and please not replace him with another "rodeo clown."

      Report Abuse
    • Author by juliajayne (May 08, 2007 2:39 pm ET)
         

      CNN is a network that's slipped

      Into frenzies it gets itself whipped

      Over perverts or stars

      Driving drunk in their cars

      From its' broadcast the real news clipped

      Report Abuse
    • Author by juliajayne (May 08, 2007 2:45 pm ET)
         

      There once was a clown name of Glenny

      Who called Mr. Gore henny penny

      For saying the sky's

      Retaining co2 so high

      That there will be suffering for many

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (May 08, 2007 3:19 pm ET)
           

        I'm surprised by Beck's low numbers on the Climate Change Denial special. The enthusiasm shown here and by callers to righty talk radio would suggest that there are plenty of concerned citizens hungry for more of this.

        By concerned citizens, I mean concerned about the possibility of having to change anything about their luxurious lifestyle.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by zappatero (May 08, 2007 5:03 pm ET)
           

        There once was a hate-host named Beck Who CNN tried to pimp, "what the heck?" His ratings were a joke Godwin's law he'd provoke Will those who run CNN find more dreck?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by jobstress9897 (May 08, 2007 3:23 pm ET)
         

      I can understand why Oil Companies and politicians like Inofe deny Global Warming, but I don't get why these right wing fools resist it so. Is it just to be contrarian? Some of them at least are intelligent. They can see and read about the evidence from scientists all over the world. So why then do they persist in this lunacy? I guess to them it's some sort of liberal plot---to do what, I can't fathom. They live on the same planet as the rest of us. They will have to face the same consequences as we do, and their children and grandchildren as well. Anybody out there have a clue what's going on with this seemingly brain-dead resistance?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by juliajayne (May 08, 2007 3:32 pm ET)
           

        Oh the irony of being "family values" but not really caring about your extended family.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by kensp (May 08, 2007 3:45 pm ET)
           

        a lot of conservatives, like Newt Gingrich, seem to be trying to get out in front of this issue now. Beck is one of a dwindling minority of dead enders who continue to deny the science and bring up silly conspiracy theories about the UN and Global government as a smokescreen.

        The problem they face is how can they simultaneously be on the right side of the global warming issue and still continue to attack and discredit Gore at every turn? Well they can't really without looking like fools, so this is going to be interesting.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Isthisagreatcountryorwhat (May 08, 2007 3:49 pm ET)
           

        People are terrified of change, like to live in denial, don't want to be inconvenienced, refuse to recognize their contribution to the problem, are too lazy to change, have no power over their own lives so they try and seize power by taking a stand against something they feel helpless to change anyway, they are selfish, self centered, ego centric and narcissitic, they don't know what to believe, they distrust authority, they think it's a liberal granola thing, they refuse to listen to reason because its too convenient not too, they don't care, they don't want to change their life style because they feel they are entitled to ruin the earth, they are ignorant, they lack a decent scientific education, and they don't like Al Gore. That's part of the reason anyway.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jscott (May 08, 2007 5:17 pm ET)
             

          But what's the REAL reason?

          Report Abuse
        • Author by skettle2000 (May 08, 2007 8:01 pm ET)
             

          To be totally honest I believe more people on the right would come around if the people on the left started talking seriously about using nuclear power. Instead they just warn and warn and warn but never talk about practical large scale solutions. You can't go and pass a law saying co2 has to be reduced by a certain percentage than not have a plan for how we are going to come up with the energy.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (May 08, 2007 8:45 pm ET)
               

            that is one thing that i am willing to listen to the pro and con on. obviously the main problem would seem to be disposal of waste, but there has to be some way it can be done safely and protected from misuse.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by skettle2000 (May 08, 2007 10:36 pm ET)
                 

              yes - the main problem is the disposal of waste. it stays radioactive for thousands of years. some people suggest storage on site so it does not have to be transported - transportation could risk a spill. Basically nuclear power is not totally safe but compared to GW it may be the lesser of two evils. France gets 80 percent of its power from nuclear energy.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by open_mind (May 09, 2007 12:46 am ET)
                   

                Your main problem is that the energy industry has no interest in building nuclear power plants. I don't know why it would take building them to bring conservatives around. I thought conservatives believed in the free-market -- which apparently isn't currently favoring nuclear powerplants.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by skettle2000 (May 09, 2007 5:05 pm ET)
                     

                  i'm saying you can't go and put restrictions on co2 without allowing the energy companies to build nuclear power plants or the targets will be hard to meet without significant damage to the economy. I imagine the main reason energy companies can't build them is the old "not in my backyard" protests and the miles of red tape that has to be cut through. with zero restrictions on co2, coal plants are the cheapest plants to build.

                  Report Abuse
      • Author by doughpro1604643 (May 08, 2007 4:54 pm ET)
           

        If you did some homework you would learn the agenda behind GW. Increased role of government in telling you how to live your life by creating limits on your use of energy with no real change overall to the environment. Energy usage limits on individuals and industries, with penalties to those who break the limits. Inventive ways to scam money from consumers with "green" products. Shifting the balance of prosperity around the world. Do you want to be told that you can only have one car per household? The outcome will be the US becoming a third world country itself, and if you study the long-term effects of what they are proposing with this scam, then you will see what I mean.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (May 08, 2007 5:51 pm ET)
             

          I thought your post was just the same old Ditto-head government-control of our lives BS about Global Warming.

          Until I saw that you had already studied the long-term effects of something that is being proposed.

          I bet your time machine runs on good ol' petroleum, eh?

          Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (May 08, 2007 6:34 pm ET)
             

          What is the motive for turning the U.S. into a "Third World Country?" What drives these evil bastards?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by doughpro1604643 (May 08, 2007 8:38 pm ET)
               

            terms such as "global economy", "new world order", "world bank", etc....What do you think the plan is? In a global economy, it makes no sense for one nation to reap all the benefits of prosperity while others go without. It is not rightwing or leftwing, it is an attempt to bring wealth to other nations who have none. The intention is obvious, and I can't believe that so many people are falling for the hype. Can you honestly tell me that you agree with banning light bulbs? What happened to choice? Fluorescents contain mercury. Do you know what it takes to dispose of mercury? Do you think that every person is going to be honest enough to dispose of it properly? Do you not know what mercury did to the environment years ago? So, banning light bulbs (increased government regulation), disposing of fluorescents properly (more regulation), punishment if you don't? BTW check out who is going to benefit from the banning of light bulbs. Look deep. GW is nothing but a way to get government even more embedded in our lives.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by open_mind (May 09, 2007 12:59 am ET)
                 

              Can you point to any specific proposals or are you just speculating?

              Are there currently any regulations on the disposal of toxic chemicals? I bet there are. Why would adding mercury to that list be onerous to you (assuming it isn't there already)? Do you think anything should be regulated at all? Or is any regulation, however seemingly benign, just one step closer to the black helicopters swooping in to take us over?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by doughpro1604643 (May 09, 2007 9:18 am ET)
                   

                to me. I recycle and have been since the 70's. I was brought up learning how to reduce my "carbon footprint" living through water shortages, gas shortages, brown-outs. I have been doing these things for years, and not because there was legislation forcing me to do it, but because I chose to. I feel it is my responsibility to do my part since I am living in one of the biggest throw-away societies in the world. I have a serious problem, though, with the government telling me that I cannot use regular light bulbs, and then giving me the option to use something that is even more harmful to the environment. Are my lightbulbs harmful? Show me the proof. What happened to my CHOICE to use incandescent vs fluorescent? I stand my ground that GW is a farce. Prove me otherwise.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (May 09, 2007 10:44 am ET)
                     

                  "I stand my ground that GW is a farce. Prove me otherwise."

                  I think it's safe to say that there is no standard of proof that would satisfy you. After all, any scientific evidence is just...well, the work of those who are already in on the "scam", right?

                  What else could possibly do it?

                  Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (May 09, 2007 1:05 am ET)
                 

              I can't believe there are people who are still wetting themselves over the "new world order" line.

              I almost have to believe this is parody, simply because most people who think like this are afraid to use computers because they think the government is watching them through the monitor.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by doughpro1604643 (May 09, 2007 11:56 am ET)
                   

                and you guys crack me up with your worship of GW, but denouncement of other fallacies that run along the same lines and use the same scare tactics. What is the difference?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (May 09, 2007 12:32 pm ET)
                     

                  There is no "worship of GW". It's called "respect for science". It's not gospel, nobody claims it is, but it's not illegitimate in its entirety just because you have a conspiracy theory.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by doughpro1604643 (May 09, 2007 1:01 pm ET)
                       

                    If the "worship" is simply a respect for science, then why such overt disrespect for the opposite position? Both sides are based on scientific data.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Brabantio (May 09, 2007 1:14 pm ET)
                         

                      Why are you putting quotes around "worship"? Are you questioning the validity of the term you yourself used?

                      There's a scientific method. There's a process. When one side doesn't put their work up for review, then it's not credible. That's how it works, it's about verification. Either you believe that the side warning of GW is acting in good faith, or you believe that there's a huge conspiracy involving the vast majority of scientists, and big oil is trying to break that nefarious plot wide open through a handful of nay-sayers.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by doughpro1604643 (May 09, 2007 4:10 pm ET)
                           

                        You claim there is no “worship of GW”. I do not question the validity of my term. You obviously have, hence the use of quotes. I will attempt to put it into terms you may accept more freely. I claim that the idealistic attitudes toward GW and the fierce attacks towards the opposing view are similar to those of one protecting ones own religion. Are we done nit-picking? Look again, it is not simply a “handful of nay-sayers” anymore. The number of people who are looking at both sides of the issue, and disagreeing with Gore’s “consensus” on GW is growing. Gore’s answers aren’t the only answers, and the panic that he has tried to instill in us with AIT is subsiding, thank goodness.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by jscott (May 10, 2007 4:11 pm ET)
                             

                          Thank goodness your panic is subsiding. The problem is that the threat is not. You may question the motives of these so-called "doomsayers" and "fearmongers" but you CANNOT dispute facts, you can only spin them.

                          The polar ice sheets are melting at an alarming rate. THAT IS A FACT. The hottest decade on record is the one just past. THAT IS A FACT. Big Oil has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. THAT IS A FACT.

                          As for you specious claims of vague conspiracies, and unholy alliances, Ican only ask; PARANOID MUCH?

                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by Brabantio (May 10, 2007 4:23 pm ET)
                             

                          It has nothing to do with faith or anything resembling it. I have no stake in whether it's true or not, it doesn't conflict with any ideological tenets. If research comes out that shows that it's not true, or is going to correct itself, that's great! I'd love to see that. But meanwhile, science is still science, and it's the only tool we have for figuring these things out. It's absurd to question the ethics of the vast majority of the field because you don't personally want to believe what they're saying.

                          Report Abuse
      • Author by CrescentDrive (May 09, 2007 2:27 am ET)
           

        Jobstress,

        Maybe some are in complete denial, but it is the alarmist environmental mentality that makes me wary.. Ozone holes, thinning bird egg membranes and similar issues have resulted in changing the way we do things, but the fix seems to result in little overall effect and sometimes creates more collateral damage than good..

        I keep hearing about oil usage and how noone's trying to become less dependent.. Fact is, we are so dependent, that it is not going to change overnight and probably not in our lifetime.. I am amazed, however, with all of our American thinking power that alternatives are not being pursued faster, but obviously with the big machine rolling and pockets getting lined, it will be a tough thing to overcome..

        If anything the GW alarmist attitude is an attempt to quicken our goal of getting away from the massive oil dependency...

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jscott (May 09, 2007 10:42 am ET)
             

          First you complain that these efforts have little effect on GW, then posit that reversing GW will tak too long. Is it not worth the effort if there are no immediate results?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by CrescentDrive (May 09, 2007 3:02 pm ET)
               

            I was simply commenting on past environmental alarmists issues, such as the ozone hole, DDT and the like, that maybe some folks are a little gun-shy about another alarm being pulled... those are not obviously NOT related to GW..

            I think you got the last part right.. Even if the best idea ever was presented to get rid of all oil usage, it would be slow in coming due to the big machine rolling.. and I don't think you can point fingers at either party when referencing the "Big Machine" especially with all the succombing to lobbyists and the like..

            Report Abuse
    • Author by juliajayne (May 08, 2007 3:26 pm ET)
         

      liberals Kathleen Parker was talking to Glenny about. Now go out there and burn as much fossil fuel as quickly as you can.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (May 08, 2007 3:59 pm ET)
           

        juliajayne, my self-flagellating is off-topic and none of yer bizness.

        And I am enough of a masochist that I have forsaken my 4 wheel drive 12 cylinder behemoth, in spite of having to cart around my 10 obese children and my need to look down on others.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by kensp (May 08, 2007 3:29 pm ET)
         

      I accidentally watched about five minutes of Beck's show once. He was burbling about how happy he was that the New York Times had published an article critical of Gore. In order to underscore his happiness he did this ridiculous little jig in front of the camera. It was annoying and difficult to watch. I would have found it so even if what Beck were saying appealed to me. It is no surprise to me that his ratings are slipping.

      Republican shills on the radio are a dime a dozen. You would think that CNN could have found one that is not so incredibly unwatchable to give a television show to.

      By the way Eric, Rodeo Clowns are now officially referred to as "bullfighters" at most rodeos. What they do is actually a very serious and dangerous job. I understand the metaphor, but comparing a bullfighter to a lightweight like Beck is an insult to bullfighters.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Isthisagreatcountryorwhat (May 08, 2007 3:33 pm ET)
         

      I have been a fan of CNN Headline news before they bought up The Sattelite News Network-"give us 18 minutes we'll give you the world" WAY WAY WAY back in 1984. I cannot tell you how filled with glee I am EVERY time they take a hit in the ratings. Never, and I mean never, have I seen someone, whoever is in charge over there, take a beautiful property like CNN once was, filled with hungry journalists with an eye for the story, delivered in a no-nonsense way (thank you Lynn Russell and the other old school anchors), with a potential to be the American BBC, and so quickly turn it into a bigger piece of trash than anything Rupert Murdoch could dream up. I pray for the day CNN as an entity either files Chapter 11 or quietly goes off the air. Their demise couldn't happen to a better piece of trash, and that includes ALL the reporters and producers over there who supposedly don't like Beck. Well then grow some cajones and WALK off your job.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by ChristianDemocrat (May 08, 2007 4:04 pm ET)
           

        What a class act. Apparently, Ms Russell now works in Canada.

        Last time I tuned in Headline News, I honestly thought I had selected the wrong channel. I don't recall there being any headlines nor even any news. Will that nutty judge sue them for deceptive advertising?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Eric Jaffa (May 08, 2007 3:55 pm ET)
         

      ...towards Beck, just towards his ratings increase at that time.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Rick Massimo (May 08, 2007 4:18 pm ET)
         

      is about the size of it. Why is CNN promoting someone's lack of experience as a selling point? What does that say to and about their other correspondents?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 08, 2007 6:39 pm ET)
           

        They're trying to appeal to the same knuckledraggers who love Fox "News." That is the only possible explanation. And, it makes sense; gullible people are more easily influenced by advertising.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by doughpro1604643 (May 08, 2007 9:19 pm ET)
             

          do you hate those who watch Fox? What happened to bipartisanship? You are entitled to enjoy your sources, I am entitled to enjoy mine. Why must you resort to juvenile name-calling? The Great Global Warming Swindle. Google it, it is interesting. Or are you afraid...............

          Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (May 09, 2007 2:45 pm ET)
               

            What are you talking about? What does "bipartisanship" have to do with anything?

            Report Abuse
          • Author by brian.kresge931 (May 10, 2007 10:19 am ET)
               

            Since when should factual reporting relate to bipartisanship? Fox's reporting is pedestrian drivel, geared towards the lowest common denominator. It's got nothing to do with partisanship, and everything to do with appealing to the grotesquely tendentious and uninformed who, for whatever reason, find Fox comforting to their easily bruised, conspiratorial sensibilities.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by jscott (May 10, 2007 4:18 pm ET)
               

            why do you hate those who watch Fox?

            Because they usually vote for morons like bush (lowercase intentional).

            Report Abuse
    • Author by doughpro1604643 (May 08, 2007 9:07 pm ET)
         

      How many of you were aware of the instances around the country where that particular show was not aired as it regularly is? Seems that some cable companies (Comcast, for one) were doing some censoring of their own. That is even scarier than anything Al Gore could come up with. Or................maybe people have just finally smartened up and didn't really need Beck to reinforce the fact that it is not all that Gore claims it to be.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (May 09, 2007 1:13 am ET)
           

        Oh yes, Beck's show tanked because everyone was pre-convinced and so didn't need to see it. That must be it.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (May 09, 2007 1:19 am ET)
           

        Any links to backup your claim?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by doughpro1604643 (May 09, 2007 9:32 am ET)
             

          [link to www.freerepublic.com]

          Report Abuse
          • Author by jscott (May 09, 2007 10:55 am ET)
               

            That explains it.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (May 09, 2007 11:24 am ET)
               

            A comment and response--

            "These liberals make me feel like we live in the Soviet Union."

            "....Which is their model of a socialist utopia."

            Regarding a TV listing as TBA.

            If the Freepers ever have a convention or picnic, I'm grabbing the tinfoil concession.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by doughpro1604643 (May 09, 2007 12:45 pm ET)
                 

              and I gave you one. Do you honestly think that one of your leftie blogs would complain or make it public that the show was conveniently cancelled in some areas?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by open_mind (May 09, 2007 2:27 pm ET)
                   

                The one time I forget to ask for a legitimate link, you point to a freeper site. My bad. I should have known better.

                Now, could you please provide a legitimate link? Or is that asking too much?

                Report Abuse
              • Author by open_mind (May 09, 2007 2:39 pm ET)
                   

                Your link said it showed up on Comcast as "TBA". That is not the same as "cancelled". I have Comcast and shows are often labeled as "TBA" and then a little later they appear. There is nothing suspicious about that at all.

                I am sure that if the freeper dork who posted that actually went to the channel in question at the correct time, he would have been able to watch AND/OR record the show. Of course, he doesn't mention that. Just an idiotic conspiracy theory. Surprise, surprise from a freeper.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by doughpro1604643 (May 09, 2007 4:49 pm ET)
                     

                  Almost as legitimate as one of your own, right?

                  Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (May 09, 2007 2:34 pm ET)
               

            I have Comcast. Two weeks ago, something similar happened with LOST. My digital box listed LOST on the HD channel as "TBA" until just minutes before it aired.

            Maybe that was a "librul" conspiracy to keep me from finding out what really was going on on the island!

            Freepers! LOL!

            Is that seriously what you were referring to? Some idiot in freeperville?

            Report Abuse
    • Author by bonsai pajamas (May 08, 2007 9:28 pm ET)
         

      Can't recall who said it above but I agree it's just so entertaining to watch one of these pricks go down in flames. Burn, baby, burn!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wnkf3004 (May 09, 2007 12:17 am ET)
         

      For me Beck's main problem is that he's really a no talent kind of guy. I'm being serious. You may hate Bimbaugh or O'Reilly but they're talented, in a shameless way, but talented none the less. CNN was desperate for an O'Reilly of they're own, Beck was available, so "hey, let's give it a shot, whatdayafellas?" He's like Fredo in the Godfather. When you first see him he's got some respect but as the movie unwinds we all realize Fredo is a major disappointment to the family, an embarassment, and finally a threat. After 6 months of watching a little guy trying too hard, viewers get the picture. It's Fredo, poor Fredo and it's depressing watching a loser trying too hard. But CNN is stuck with him and can't take him out on the lake. And considering the slow decline of CNN what to do with Beck becomes a real problem for the cable suits who thought they had nothing to lose.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by soxeryn (May 09, 2007 7:03 am ET)
         

      The whole CNN enterprise is a pathetic shell of its former self, and is an almost totally unreliable source for news.

      Just yesterday after CNN (Carol Costello and Wolf Blitzer), while comparing the French and American presidential elections, described Rudy as a Conservative and Hillary as a Liberal.

      Neither are either, and no evidence to prove CNN's assertion was offered, just chuckles all around.

      Shameful.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by kccollier6913 (May 09, 2007 9:55 am ET)
         

      Beck's "Climate of Fear" tanked because most viewers are fed up with the subject. We all accept the world is getting warmer, but we do not know or accept why. I watched the show but found myself constantly hitting the remote to see what else was playing, or was coming up, 'cause noting new was offered.

      I'm struck by this column's personal attacks on Beck, plus derision of CNN, and a lack of justification for the remarks. As always, using statistics to justify a view is an old ploy. Citing specific numbers without a peripheral view of related data only causes a "glassy-eyed" response, or zzzzzzzzzzz.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dave_chicago (May 09, 2007 11:28 am ET)
           

        ----"...most viewers are fed up with the subject. We all accept the world is getting warmer, but we do not know or accept why. [...] using statistics to justify a view is an old ploy."----

        Yeah-it's much easier to assert most viewers" and "we do not know" by pulling the assertions out of your a$$ then by using the "old ploy" of presenting facts.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by brian.kresge931 (May 10, 2007 10:29 am ET)
           

        And what's so wrong with personal attacks? Beck never hesitates to make them, as this site has well documented.

        He does his job poorly. He brings in folks that are easily discredited. He compares Al Gore to Hitler's cronies. He alienates his audience from decent Muslim-Americans like Rep. Ellison. To what end? I think it has less to do with GOP talking points and more to do with the promulgation of a world free of reasoning adults. CNN is terrifically irresponsible to allow a self-described dimwit such as Beck a stage from which to influence the minds of Americans.

        If calling someone out based on their own actions, calling out a network for its lapse in its journalistic responsibility constitutes a personal attack, then I weep for the future.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by jscott (May 09, 2007 11:07 am ET)
         

      When did Boehlert make a "personal attack"? He is simply discussing Beck's SHOW, and it's effects on the ratings for CNN. Beck called HIMSELF a rodeo clown. Boehlert made NO personal attack. An example of a personal attack would be like when someone, let's say, uhhh, oh, someone like maybe BECK calling Hillary Clinton a BITCH or something sounding like witch or whatever it was he said.

      Making nonsensical comments without a peripheral view only causes a "irratable bowel" response, or Pthfewwwwwww.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by jscott (May 09, 2007 11:10 am ET)
           

        Exactly HOW do you spell out a fart sound?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by doughpro1604643 (May 09, 2007 1:36 pm ET)
           

        talk about misinformation....He was referring to the tone of her voice.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (May 09, 2007 3:11 pm ET)
             

          And your writing is idiotic. I am not attacking you personally, just your writing.

          ; )

          Report Abuse
          • Author by doughpro1604643 (May 09, 2007 5:33 pm ET)
               

            That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I am also entitled to disagree with you, I happen to think my writing is wonderful. In fact, I can write one thing and actually believe another. I can write with a southern flair and impress those from the south. I can write something, and months from now write something completely opposite from what I wrote originally. I can write to please whatever audience is reading my work, and none of those in the audience are smart enough to realize that I am pandering to them. I have to admit though that I can write much better than I can sing.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by political_left-religious_right (May 10, 2007 9:45 am ET)
                 

              That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

              An irrelevant statement, since we all know that.

              I am also entitled to disagree with you, I happen to think my writing is wonderful.

              Ego alert!

              In fact, I can write one thing and actually believe another.

              Ah, a writer with no convictions, how nice.

              I can write with a southern flair and impress those from the south.

              That doesn't speak so well for them, does it?

              I can write something, and months from now write something completely opposite from what I wrote originally.

              Hmmm, a writer who actually brags about his inconsistency.

              I can write to please whatever audience is reading my work,

              Have you ever pleased anyone here?

              and none of those in the audience are smart enough to realize that I am pandering to them.

              My, my. You really have that little respect for your audience?

              I have to admit though that I can write much better than I can sing.

              Ah, a final attempt to throw in a little humbleness in what was otherwise an ego-ridden exercise in condescension and self-delusion. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by iflurry8094 (May 09, 2007 3:22 pm ET)
         

      When is Bill-O going to step in and start a petition to get Beck replaced, if he's such a ratings disaster?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by carolinacal (May 09, 2007 6:32 pm ET)
         

      he is.

      Ugly and ignorant with a dash of spite and a liar to boot.

      Glenn Beck: The epitome of the new right that controls this country.

      I curse him for his lies which killed so many.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by lapopessa (May 10, 2007 7:26 am ET)
         

      I grew up on rodeo. Those clowns are actually brave men who throw themselves in between hundreds of pounds of angry bull and a downed cowboy.

      Brave man? Talented? That's not the Beck I see. He spits on the guys I grew up knowing by calling himself that name.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by urajzed4840 (May 10, 2007 7:39 pm ET)
         

      If they wanted to do serious journalism, they would have hired a serious journalist. They gambled with their image. I trust them to show me pictures of a disaster as it's occurring, but I don't trust them to dig into the affairs of government nor do lengthy analysis of human affairs. While Anderson Cooper and Blitzer might think of themselves as serious journalists, they're bookended by these hacks like Beck and Larry King (yeah I said it) who peddle in celebrity, ambulance chasing (Victims of this or that on next!), and pseudo-science. How can one claim to be representing truth in human affairs when the organization they work for trucks in bulls***? I watched as Beck cuddled up to John Edwards, a debunked charlatan, and now he thinks he has the cachet to weigh in on climate science, or real science?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by temphandle cusps43broadcasters (May 10, 2007 11:08 pm ET)
         

      In signing on Beck, CNN seriously underestimated the intelligence of its audience. The reality is that the average CNN viewer is a good deal more intelligent and better informed than the average FOX viewer. Therefore trying to outfox FOX by putting on a "commentator" who is even more stupid and ignorant than Hannity and O'Reilley has backfired. The great majority of CNN viewers recognize Beck as an insult to their intelligence and turn him off.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by temphandle cusps43broadcasters (May 10, 2007 11:19 pm ET)
         

      Now that Beck's show is failing, as it richly deserves to do, the question is what should replace it?

      I think it would be great if they brought back Crossfire, but in a new improved version. The suggested improvements are as follows:

      1. Half of the commentators should be women, and part should be members of minorities.

      2. Commentators should not be allowed to interrupt each other nor should they be allowed to shout at each other. While the debate should be vigorous, no incivilities should be allowed.

      Report Abuse