Beck attacks media-reform organization Free Press and its "radical, Marxist founder" Robert McChesney

Well if the McChesney said it about himself he must believe it, and why should we have someone in the White House and or help make policy that has those beliefs.

whatever beck, mcchesney is one of the only media people supporting fair play to all media outlets.

Per Glenn Beck at the 5:05 min. mark: ...the Government to "remedy" the problem of Conservative Voices on Talk Radio by among other things "forcing" Commercial Owners who "fail" to "ABIDE" by their rules to "pay" a fee that would "subsidized" public broadcasting. "Freedom of Speech" is the most important right blah, blah, blah.

Bottom line, Glenn is making his case of why FoxNews Channel should "NOT" take him off their airwaves because of his right, "Freedom of Speech". Hmmm, Glenn is using the David Letterman Plan by telling his Viewers what's coming soon. Uh, oh. LOL

I think I need a chalk board for the connection to IMPORTANCE here. Why is he worried about journalism? He's never participated in it yet. Can you imagine Beck on cocaine? Creep in every corner bar.

How can anyone give credence to a guy who takes old, truncated clips, without providing context, to try to create the exact same impression about every Obama associate he attacks? Is everyone Obama has ever known a radical Marxist, hell-bent on overturning the American way of life? Glenn Beck is a throwback to the fifties when right wingers slammed everyone they didn't like as being a Communist. That's the America Glenn Beck is yearning for.

It always astonishes me how often the Beck's stories end in violent imagery. At the very end, he's advising the existing (corporate, reactionary) "free" press, to buy their own cigarettes and blindfolds for the firing squad.
He just can't stop with the fear-mongering and the only way you, dear listener/watcher, can defend yourself from the violent, Marxist, radical Communist, anti-capitalists is get them before they line you up against the wall.
All those drugs really did affect the poor man.

@ 3:36, "minimalize" it?

My first posting. I listen to Olbermann and Schultzs, Rush and Glenn. Medved and Oreilly too, who seems like the most open to hosting a true debate, and both sides of an issue. I enjoy Medced/Shultz going at it. But back to Glenn, I think he's asking questions, and neither Olbermann, or any responses here ever seem to contradict factually or tackle his POINT.. you seem to say blah blah blah, as if self-described marxists (ussr? stalin? russian cars? bread lines? 3rd world economy with Chernobyls and Pravda-media?) ..as if self -described Communists are not a big deal to have access to policy and the oval office. You can tear down the man, but what he leaves on the table remains. In fact, I rarely hear anyone say he's unfactual...wrong as in wrong-headed if that's your view, but anyway, noone is investigating and shining lights in the dcark corner of the government and what are now semi-governmental agencies, tax funded and serving factionally: acorn, seiu, andc now the NEA. The apollo project and the like supply game plans, giving voice to ex-bombers like weather underground Ayers, and folks like MCchesney who are BANKING on the collapse of the USA, to remake a communist/socialist superpower. I respect a good well made argument, so it would be a nice change to engage on ideas, and not the usual flat-forehead "..yeah, well youre a so and so....", cause that leaves my points on the table. Looking at the posts on here, I doubt I'll see that.

Surprise me.

Sorry, Glenn, there are actual news outlets and journalists that I do trust. They don't lie to me night after night after night. They don't treat me like I'm an idiot. They don't tell me what I want to hear - they tell me the way it is and let me form my own opinion.

They are more concerned with integrity than simply making a quick buck.

And they aren't too concerned. So neither am I. Interesting how that works, huh?

I can definitely see how you're concerned, though.

Commrades,

Our esteemed leader continues to surround himself with what? People that have nothing in common with him? Why of course, any human seeks companionship and support from those who are diametrically opposed to the ideals that one holds so closely. :>

Why the surprise that we find another communist huddled with the proletariat amassed in the administration? Be proud liberals/progressives/socialists of who you are! Don't hide but get your message out from every mountaintop! Shout that "Bill Ayers was right", or "Mark Lloyd speaks the truth!", and "Chavez, Castro and Zelaya are the leaders of the people!"

Don't be afraid, be honest and trust in the American citizenry to discover the truth and follow accordingly. Besides his politics, McChesney's interest in establishing "Free Press" is like Pol Pot establishing a human rights commission. People will soon begin to see the truth in what someone wants and believes. So again, commrades let us debate honestly and proudly of what we believe and let individuals decide which set of values they share.

everybodys a marxist!LOL

Do these guys understand that what their revered Founding Fathers created was one of, if not the most radical undertakings in world history? Why does that word so terrify them?

This is a classic Beck clip, and should/could be diagrammed on a chalkboard to demonstrate exactly how he links together out-of-context, unrelated clips into nonsense and idiotic conspiracy theories. His goal is to work people up into an unthinking furor -- did you notice how during the "tea" "party" protests, the people interviewed often had no idea what they were talking about? I mean, no sense that Obama can't really be BOTH a fascist AND a communist at the same time? Hilarious, actually.

Where was Beck when President Bush filled his administration with corporate toadies to regulate their own industries? If he's so concerned with protecting the interests of average Americans, why doesn't Beck ever criticize or take on the corporate powers that distort democracy every single day? Is he so in love with the word "capitalism" that he won't even take on those who subvert it?

Wake up, Beck and friends: What we have in America today is a hideous distortion of capitalism. Nearly *all* of our allies around the world have governments led by democratic socialists or have a robust democratic socialist party. And you know what? People around the world LIKE democratic socialism, because it's pretty much like what we have here, except it extends democracy to economic issues, too. Rather than consolidate wealth and power in a narrow super-rich elite, as Mr. Bush successfully advanced.

On top of all that, honestly, the dude is just not funny or entertaining. He's even smarmier than Olbermann, whose on-air persona is nearly as annoying.

Sorry for such a long post, but really, reading this thread can, well, get a guy going...

I sincerely hope the Dems aren't stupid enough to go after the uber-conservative "journatainment" media cartel. This would be like killing your gold egg laying goose.

Like Napoleon said: "Never interrupt your enemy while he's making a mistake." The uber-cons have met their enemy and it is them. Just sit back and enjoy the show. Sit around the boob tube and AM radio and watch them self-destruct as thinking non-white and thinking white conservatives leave in droves, embarrassed and ashamed to have ever been associated with such an abomination.

McChesney is a radical Marxist. Read his own words:

John Bellamy Foster and Robert W. McChesney
A New New Deal under Obama?

—December 21, 2008

A return to the kind of social programs associated with the real or second New Deal can be expected to come, if at all, only later, after the initial salvage effort. Moreover, this is unlikely to materialize to any considerable extent apart from a revolt from below on the scale at least of the mid-1930s. Labor must rise again from its ashes. Only a very radical shift in U.S. politics resulting from a major groundswell from below will be able significantly to budge the ceiling on civilian government spending.

Under these circumstances, it is the specific responsibility of the left to urge not only the militant organization of the underlying population, but also the kinds of change, going against the logic of the system and relying on an expansion of government, that will contribute substantially to bettering the conditions of those at the bottom. In terms of demands this should include, for starters, that: (1) government assume the responsibility for providing useful work at a livable wage to all who need it, utilizing existing skills; (2) unemployment compensation be extended beyond its present inadequate limits; (3) those in danger of losing their homes be granted government assistance; (4) a crash housing program be initiated on behalf of those who are homeless or wretchedly housed (including mortgage relief and support to renters); (5) a truly progressive tax system, incorporating a wealth tax, be established; (6) food stamps and food programs for the poor be expanded along with other welfare provisions and easier access; (7) national health insurance (a single-payer system) be provided for the entire population; (8) pension funds be guaranteed by government; (9) Social Security be augmented and regressive payroll taxes eliminated; (10) restrictive laws on unionization be removed; (11) the federal minimum wage be raised; (12) a thirty-hour working week be introduced; (13) a nationwide program of mass transit be promoted; (14) publicly owned and controlled communications systems be greatly enlarged and extended throughout the nation; (15) public education funding be enormously elevated; and (16) environmental protection be vastly increased, in line with the ecological revolution now necessary to save the planet.16

Of course, given the existing power structure of U.S. society and the seven-decades-long ceiling on civilian government purchases as a percentage of GDP, all of this may appear to be pie in the sky. And our message is that it is, unless the power structure of U.S. society can be altered. Only a reform movement so radical that it would appear revolutionary within the context of the existing U.S. economic and social order, fundamentally reducing the field of operation of the capitalist market, holds any chance of substantially improving the conditions of most people in society. Needless to say, for such a struggle to succeed people will have to have a sense of real things to struggle for that will materially affect their lives.

These gains will only be made through an enormous class struggle from below. If won, they will not, we underscore, eliminate the evils of capitalism, or the dangers it poses for the world and its people. In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles. This is something that the great majority of the population will undoubtedly learn in the course of their struggles for a more equal, more humane, more collective, and more sustainable world. In the meantime, it is time to begin to organize a revolt against the ruling class–imposed ceiling on civilian government spending and social welfare in U.S. society.



http://monthlyreview.org/090201foster-mcchesney.php#fn1b