Kurtz notes Beck "trashed" Van Jones while "neglect[ing] to mention" Jones co-founded group leading advertising boycott
August 30, 2009 12:24 pm ET
From the August 30 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908250060
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/30/howard-kurtz-glenn-beck-attacking-van-jones-because-ad-boycott
Gee... I guess reality has a liberal bias as well.
Drive home safely.
Now what in that is incorrect? Where does MMfA "report an inaccurate story" in that?
Lets start here: There are no vendettas on either side. Ok? So all we have is a boycott by COC because Glenn Beck called Obama a racist. Right? No biases, we have no proof that COC is doing this because Glenn Beck started talking about Van Jones and there is no proof that Glenn Beck is showcasing Van Jones because he is being boycotted by COC. Right? Right.
But if we follow Howard's narrative and reporting...it goes something like this. Glenn Beck is talking about Van Jones because COC is boycotting him and it's odd that he doesn't mention that, because of the fact Van Jones co-founded COC. Seems nefarious doesn't it? So Kurtz is starting the narrative...if we followed his narrative with all the facts then it could be said that maybe COC is doing the boycott because Glenn Beck started talking about Van Jones. When presented with all the facts it could also be assumed that maybe Glenn Beck is not mentioning COC because he is taking the higher road.
So again either Kurtz, and it looks like Olbermann, were either being disingenuous or lazy.
I think you might be a bit confused on the timing of things.
You are right about the July 28, 2009 date on which Beck made is "[Obama] is, I believe, a racist" statement.
The episode of Beck's show that this article and Kurtz are referring to occurred on August 24 when Beck returned from his vacation.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/08/glenn-beck-ignores-ad-boycott.html
I'm glad to see you're here and hope that you're here with an open mind :) (from an ex-right-winger)
The point that I believe is being made by Kurtz, is that one really can't find a recent event that would serve as a cause to attack Van Jones in such a vitriolic manner. Was he involved in a scandal? Did he fail on some catastrophic level at performing his duties as Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality? No, no events of that sort have occurred. If, however, one takes a minute to do the sort of research that Kurtz and others have done, he/she finds that there is in fact a recent event involving Van Jones that has great significance for Beck. That event is the charge to get companies to boycott Beck's show. It could legitimately be proposed, Evil, that this event was the trigger that set off Beck's recent rant on Van Jones. Because that trigger is never brought into light during this rant, one can say that he as a journalist is being irresponsible.
So yes, I get your point that Beck has never been buddies with Van Jones, but that in no way invalidates what Kurtz brings into light in his report. I would think that someone like yourself who has indicated in some of your posts a desire for transparency would welcome this sort of reporting. Perhaps I am wrong, it's happened before :)
What triggered Glenn Beck to talk about Van Jones? A recent event you say? How about that he's a communist and he has the presidents ear? So then following your trigger theory...it could be that COC started their boycott because Glenn started talking about Van Jones. Right? Isn't that just as true as assuming that the reason Glenn Beck is continuingto talk about Van Jones is because he is being boycotted? So it all starts with the basis of "Why is glenn beck not mentioning the boycott?"...so the way Kurtz explains, it's probably because he doesn't want people to know the reason he is attacking such an obscure figure in the white house, right? Yet it becomes harder to make that true when Glenn Beck was attacking this figure before the boycott began. I am just flabbergasted that I have to explain this. Just so I'm straight...you find nothing wrong with Howard Kurtz leaving out that Glenn Beck had been attacking Van Jones before the boycott?
What triggered Glenn Beck to talk about Van Jones? A recent event you say? How about that he's a communist and he has the presidents ear? So then following your trigger theory...it could be that COC started their boycott because Glenn started talking about Van Jones. Right? Isn't that just as true as assuming that the reason Glenn Beck is continuingto talk about Van Jones is because he is being boycotted? So it all starts with the basis of "Why is glenn beck not mentioning the boycott?"...so the way Kurtz explains, it's probably because he doesn't want people to know the reason he is attacking such an obscure figure in the white house, right? Yet it becomes harder to make that true when Glenn Beck was attacking this figure before the boycott began. I am just flabbergasted that I have to explain this. Just so I'm straight...you find nothing wrong with Howard Kurtz leaving out that Glenn Beck had been attacking Van Jones before the boycott?
I read your link from Newsbusters, and here's the issue I have. Without even doing the research, I could make a guess that ColorOfChange or some other person or group with a connection to Van Jones did or said something that cast a negative light on Beck that Newsbusters is not referencing in their analysis.
Perhaps Kurtz could have mentioned that Beck has shown animosity towards Van Jones on occasion before this most recent event, but then again, that may create the illusion that the rivalry or animosity was greater than it really was.
Using research tools other than Newsbusters, it's difficult (for me at least) to find articles on Beck attacking Van Jones to the degree that he did on 8/24/09. So I believe that to some (perhaps a large) degree, the prior Beck attacks may be being overplayed a bit by Newsbusters and others arguing on Beck's behalf. Because of this, I tend to think that mentioning these prior critiques of Van Jones do not warrant a mention *as much as* the mention of Beck neglecting to bring into context recent and very relevant events that may have a direct influence on this new headlining attack.
Well there is one of your problems. Maybe you should do the research...because there's not. Here is a transcript of Glenn Beck when I think he first mentions Van Jones. He mentions him for the same reason I would if I had a radio show. An avowed communist has the ear of the president.
Here ya go
Well there is one of your problems. Maybe you should do the research...because there's not. Here is a transcript of Glenn Beck when I think he first mentions Van Jones. He mentions him for the same reason I would if I had a radio show. An avowed communist has the ear of the president.
Here ya go
Regarding your own research. You are now relying on a Glenn Beck transcript? Glenn Beck, the source of tremendous amounts of misinformation, is who you are now relying on to prove your point?
I'm sorry, there's just no way we can debate this if you are going to cite the mentally unstable Beck to prove your side.
I will give you that your transcript proved your point about Beck critiquing Van Jones on prior shows, but if you double check my prior comments, I wasn't refuting that point.
I will also give you that I have a bias against Beck. If we are discussing my biases, it is important to note that I have a bias in general towards those who make a habit of spreading misinformation with the intentionality and frequency exhibited by Beck. If you have a bias in favor of Beck, I would suggest broadening the scope of your news sources. You might just start to see the same trend I saw regarding the quality and accuracy of the statements Beck frequently makes. It's not like this video documents the first offense of Beck leaving a bit of relevant and perhaps crucial information out of his reporting.
10 to 1 bet he doesn't come back and admit to being wrong.
You say: if a, he was right, if b, he was wrong, does it matter?
Well if that's the case, I think the answer is "yes", it does matter.
Really, everyone, can we all make comments here in the spirit of honest, open-minded, rational analysis and debate?
At a certain point this goes from being an open place of discussion about the video to a close-minded, town-hall-health-reform style shouting match.
I've tried to word my comments politely. If I haven't please let me know. It seems, sadly, that common courtesy seems to be going the way of the dinosaurs...
Howard Kurtz chided Glenn Beck for not presenting all the facts upon making his argument Howard Kurtz did not present all the facts. So when someone cannot bring themselves to reason that that is not right, then where do we stand? I'm sorry for being rude but I'm just tired of it...it happens on the right far too much as well. People literally become blinded by their devotion to an idea that reason, logic, and obviously facts become only possible variables rather than the constant.
Again, what part of this MMfA headline is inaccurate?
Show me. By all means. Explain to me like I'm a four-year old how this has word one to do with the slight of hand tripe you're pushing?
And Glenn Beck takes the higher road?!? When?
Good slappin' grief.
Wait...
Have you guys even watched the piece?
Do you not think part of the story is missing if he doesn't mention Beck attacked Van Jones before the boycott?
Lets see if I can get somewhere with this...
I never discussed the quality of Kurtz's entire to-do. I am saying that Beck must disclose such things as a reporter... obviously, he is not anything resembling a reporter, but he tries to portray one. THAT is the issue in the headline.
If you want to start discussing other things, fine. But leave the damn goalposts where they are.
I am saying that Beck must disclose such things as a reporter...
We know Beck isn't, as you said, is Howard Kurtz? Do you hold the same belief towards him...shouldn't a reporter disclose all the facts? Like those facts of Beck attacking Van Jones before the boycott? But then if Kurtz did that it wouldn't fit into his stories narrative.
Again, Kurtz is not my issue. But if you insist, I find Kurtz to be a schnook silly with journalistic no-nos.
Regardless of whether Kurtz is super-duper (he's not) or anything "fits his narrative" (wholly irrelevant) or you have your facts straight (you don't quite, they are littered with opinion as a cherry pick), Beck failed to disclose his conflict of interest when acting as a fact giver on a supposed news network. THAT is what the headline notes. Nothing more.
Now, if you wish to declare that MMfA's editing of the clip does not match the headline's narrative, fine. It's a real nitpick, but okay. You win that one. I concede that point.
But that's not what you argued. I'd be willing to concede many things if it was the issue. As is, I'm very sorry that I had the temerity to stick to the point.
Ok, Evil, I will directly answer your question.
No. I don't think that is relevant considering his prior attacks were no where near as caustic as this most recent one. I tried to find some details on his prior attacks but am hard pressed to find them. Please, if you have news stories that add substance to your claims, post them.
And you retort with a link to "news"busters. Laughable.
Van Jones has not been an active member of Color of Change since 2007. While the members of ColorofChange may have been upset by this attack, they did nothing.
Glenn Beck called the President a racist on 28 August. On 30 August, ColorofChange starts its boycott.
Beck routinely lashes out at members of the Obama administration, many of whom have connections to advocacy groups (I suspect). None of these groups started boycotts, but they probably joined the current one.
The connection which you are trying to build is ephemeral.
The only connection which I see is the 28th racist statement and the 30th boycott.
Beck's post-boycott attacks on Van Jones are due to his status as co-founder of COC. That is the only connection I see there, and it seems to be Beck's contention that there is a connection. (But don't mention the boycott!)
I think Beck will have as much luck with not mentioning the boycott as Basil Fawlty did when he didn't want to talk about the war.
with this...
Doesn't help your case.
I am not claiming any theory...I am only claiming one was reported by Howard Kurtz by leaving out important facts. That is the very definition of misinformation...so since MM is not reporting it as such, since they don't report liberal misinformation they must be, in this instance, participating in the misinforming. You could cut the irony with a knife.
Yes. I could.
And by the way... that bit I quoted was not you proving anything about me. You were speaking to someone else at the time.
Becky is such a lowlife, inbred, hick of a terrorist....it doesn't take much to put him in a bad light. His mere existence rivals that of Hitler and Saddam.'
It could be a wildly twisted plot, could be just a bad day. They happen.
It is a form of censorship. You intimidate your opponet by denyng him or her credibility. explicitly, only a fool would believe him. Evidence, one kind of off post.
Just as my misspelling(which word?) somehow takes the credibility of my statement south somehow.
You mean like calling him nutty? You're right I didn't get the joke...so you guy's are using the neo-con jean moguls own love potion #9? Glenn Beck is nutty...you would have to be a fool to believe him.
Versis, the pile that Beck has put out in any week.
You believe there are equal grounds of for diregarding someone on the given evidence?
lowlife, inbred, hick of a terrorist
As far as Straussian principle #9. For your edification The cliff notes version by TheraP.
My letters to Beck's advertisers were sent on 7/28/09 . . . on my own. He's disgusting.
You're absolutely right, Beck began attacking Van Jones before he said Obama was a racist. I found his July 23rd transcript. So, Beck isn't all of a sudden attacking Van Jones because of the boycott. But Kurtz isn't 'set to pain Beck in a bad light'. Beck does that ALL by himself. Beck is a liar. Here is part of his transcript:
Van Jones is a guy that was all caught up in the Rodney King trial and he was actually arrested, went into jail in April, got out in August. So he was arrested for some pretty bad stuff apparently. I mean, that's not a night in jail. He said, you know, I was just an angry guy when I went in but when I came out, I was a radical communist. This isn't, you know, 1968. This is in the 1990s. He was a radical communist. He hasn't shed that. He's still a radical. He is still a black nationalist.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/28315/
There is no evidence that he was in jail from April to August. The only thing I have found is Van Jones own words that he was arrested and later released with the charges dropped. And it wasn't for 'pretty bad stuff'.
Ironically, days after I wrote this essay, San Francisco police officers illegally arrested me and hundreds of other participants in a peaceful protest march.
The District Attorney later dropped the charges against me, and those of us who were unlawfully arrested won a small legal settlement.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-jones/15-years-ago-rodney-king-_b_48361.html
Beck is wrong that Van Jones is 'still a black nationalist' or 'a radical communist'. He renounced those titles.
But I have to take on the worst one: Beck repeatedly and mistakenly asserts that Van is presently a communist.
Once again, this charge is easily refuted - most obviously by the pro-business, market-based ideas Van has promoted for years, including in his best-selling book, The Green Collar Economy. Van's book is a veritable song of praise to capitalism, especially the socially responsible and eco-friendly kind.
Yes, for a while, Van and his student-aged friends ran around spouting 1960s rhetoric and romanticizing revolutionary icons. But that was years ago. Way back then, I counseled him to rethink his tactics and to work for change in wiser ways.
In time, he jettisoned his youthful notions and moved on to seek more effective and attainable solutions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eva-paterson/glenn-becks-attack-on-van_b_271518.html
From the get go, Beck has lied. And he did it intentionally. You can do a simple search and find out the truth.
http://www.racewire.org/archives/2009/08/post_97.html
It should be interesting to see how he addresses this, and the points brought up in this article.
As far as the Great Depression, the federal government spent us out of it, by beginning important public works projects and by regulating the banking system. Regulations that every administration from Reagan to Bush II chipped away at until the system threatened to collapse once more. Mostly Republicans, who always seem to be against any kind of government oversight of business.
This is not about handouts. Uninsured people are already treated at emergency rooms. But this is a very expensive way to conduct health care, and so we're actually trying to bring costs down. For everyone. Even people who don't understand that this is what is going on.
You talk about people stopping working as though it is a foregone conclusion. You use the same fear mongering tactics Reagan used to defame Medicare in 1961. Those prophecies all failed. Epically.
Income is only taxed up to the first $100,000 for Social Security. If it needs more money, this limit can be raised. The current upshot of the cap is that I pay social security taxes all year, and the CEO of GM, at $15 million a year, only paid social security out of his paychecks until January 2nd. Then he was done.
Medicare is not yet bankrupt, but if costs keep going up it will be. By that point, most Americans won't be able to afford their health insurance premiums. Part of the job of the government is to see problems like this before they happen, and work hard trying to keep them from happening.
Most people have had to work for what they have, it is true. It is also true that hard work is not the guaranteed pathway to success or wealth in this country. Lots of people work hard and live in poverty. Of course, they don't really have high priced lobbyists writing legislation for them, do they? Good thing they can still vote. For now.
The projected costs of Medicare and Medicaid when it was introduced have been over run by fraud, and if they could run it properly they would have corrected it years ago by placing measures to curtail the problems.
I have a idea how about anyone on Medicare or Medicaid has to be made responsible, for instance you go to the doctor with a problem and he tells you to eat right, exercise, and loose some weight and it will help the problem. You then come back a month later and have done nothing he asked do you still fell this person should receive FREE health care?? I don't this person has disobeyed a order from a doctor who is looking out for this person at tax payers expense. You think this person deserves health care since they obsessively can't take of themselves and follow the doctors orders?
The health care "reform" bill is 1000 plus pages this is not reform but a total redesign of the system, if they wanted to reform the system they would get rid of all the government regulations and let the system work.
For instance if you live in a state you can not go to another state for health insurance why?? If I could buy health insurance from 50 different states do you think that would mean REAL competition. how about all the lawsuits that are frivolous, all the mandates that are placed on insurance companies by the state and local government to cover things that are not needed.
How about all the tests doctors HAVE to perform to cover their butt due to the all the lawsuits, lawyers have made a obscene amount of money bring forth these lawsuits. Tell me why there is no tort reform in this bill?