On Reliable Sources, Huffington points out Beck/Ailes falsehoods over Beck's "slaughtered" comment
February 07, 2010 11:31 am ET
From the February 7 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
This is priceless.
Mr. News
Superbowl preview - N'awlins 37 - Indie 28. Stay tuned for further prognostication, historic reviews, pre-game entertainment, special interviews with the players laundromat attendents, commericals, and sundry non-essential or even related fare.
However I find it ironic that HH brought up the word fairness, do you think he is pushing for the Fairness Doctrine to be brought back?
Are there ANY talk show hosts of any caliber who have comprehensively discussed politics WITHOUT using the word "slaughtered"? Let's be real, people.
A day later or so he pulled up the actual footage of him saying it and went through it line by line. It was all a discussion about the economy. Huffington appears to think that he was literally referring to a slaughter led by Obama as to us being metaphorically slaughtered in the economy.
And what is so wrong and offensive at using the word slaughter? Why all this hubub about one simple statement of opinion? Michael Malloy uses much more violent rhetoric than Beck yet I don't see a big stink being made about his radio show.
And yes, I do keep track of things I say at work, especially if I prepare my discussions in advance and follow a scripted outline. Are you suggesting Beck pulls this stuff out of his behind on air?
Let me ask you this: Do you think most murderers in prison right now are fans of Obama? Would that mean anything even if they were?
How, again, does this murderer have anything to do with Beck?
OK? Let's say that's true. Let's assume this murderer watched FNC and Beck religiously? And he listened to Beck's talk of conspiracy and flipped out. It still boils down to an insane person doing an insane thing. If I'm insane I can listen to anybody talk about anything and twist it around. Let's also not forget; the guy killed cops. When has Beck ever spoken ill of the cops?
And - once again - I'll ask a question that will simply be ignored: Michael Malloy uses much more hateful and violent rhetoric than Beck has ever used. Why not make a big fuss about him?
I'll ask again: why fuss over Beck and not Malloy? Malloy clearly uses much more violent words to convey meaning.
Really?
Rachel Maddow maybe?
When Malloy says execution he's simply talking about political execution by voting them out of office.
And it seems Malloy has a very morbid personality. And some people like that sort of dark thing.
Do you believe beck is in a position to influence masses?
Definitely. That's how leaders inspire people to do great things. The question is: was this particular murderer inclined to violent, criminal behavior before listening to Beck? My hunch is yes.
It's like me blaming the violent actions of the Earth Liberation Front on Al Gore. It doesn't make sense, does it?
Beck uses violent imagery every day. He pits one side against the other every day.
His rhetoric is so divisive, there is no way to reach the kind of consensus you were wishing for yesterday.
Until the president and his followers are accepted as true Americans we're headed for civil war.
You can't walk back from the find of incendiary speech popularized by Palin, Beck and Limbaugh and the leaders of the Republican Party who claim that their opponents are socialists.
Palin and Beck preach to the "real" Americans, the "Patriots".
I'll be damned if I'll sit by and allow some right wing nitwit to question our loyalty.
Just because you are willing to do the mental gymnastics to believe that, doesn't mean we should be expected to. We know what Beck said, because there it is, on tape. Period.
Beck is saying that if we stay with President Obama, we are going to be "slaughtered." Using terms like that is going to scare people and frighten them. If he means everyone is going to be totally ruined, in every way except death, can he explain that? Even so, it will probably incite people to do nasty things.
By that logic we are free to say those who believed in the FEMA detention camps and the government death panels are absolute idiots.
Insurance benefits have always been authorized by clerks using actuary tables and data such as lives saved per cost, etc. Health insurance has always been rationed by for profit corporations.
Psst--wk! OldConArtist has no problems with death panels when they're run for private profit...
Ha!! That's a laugh. What's REALLY happening is the hospital can't make it's case up to the level required by the insurer, patient be damned.
Here's the way I see it, OC. You, and I, and most the people who post here, certainly understand Beck was talking figuratively. Nevertheless, I'm also certain that you, and I, and most of the people who post here, have met people who hang on every word Beck says and believe without question or doubt that he's speaking the Gospel truth. I don't believe it's all his viewers. I don't believe it's most of his viewers. I don't believe it's anymore than a small sampling of his viewers, but just as Michael Jackson had fans that looked at Neverland and didn't see a pedophile wonderland, Beck's got his hardcore believers who hear Beck say, "You're going to be slaughtered," and believe the black helicopters are being fueled and the end is near.
I'm not going to call for Beck, or any one, to change their language or tone (I find the whole "retard/retarded" thing rather silly), but forchristsake the man should take responsibility for the things he says, the words he uses, and the messages he sends. The man has roughly 3 million viewers. If only 5% of that audience are the absolute idiots we've both agreed are out there that means there are roughly 150,000 God, Gold, and Gun nuts running through the streets all too eager to defend themselves against non existing threats.
And the Beatles should take responsibility for what Charles Manson did.
I'll admit, my number was a guess. What percentage of Beck's audience do you believe are absolute idiots?
And I'll agree with you--there are probably as many nutjobs/absolute idiots on the right as there is on the left.
However, the topic is Beck, Beck's words, Beck's denial of his words, and Beck's acknowledgment of those words with an explanation.
I'm offered my rough, completely unscientific, completely unsupportable by any facts number. I'm curious to know what you believe.
I'll say the number people that took him litterally-
Beck fans - less than 1/10 of 1%
Beck haters- 50% or more
I don't really think 50% of Beck haters believe it but more than 50% will use it to attack Beck
But, let's use your math. Roughly one tenth of one percent of Beck's 3,000,000 viewers take everything he says literally. That's 3,000. Three thousand loyal audience members who actually believe they're in mortal danger. Sixty over the top loons in every state of this nation.
The excuse being offered for Beck is, "Nobody in their right minds would believe this." Your figures suggest there's at least one of those people who are not in their right minds living within an hour drive of each and every one of us. Someone living somewhere very close to you, OC, believes there's a wholesale government plot afoot and somewhere within the structure there's a postal worker, a census taker, a FEMA representative, a meat inspector, an IRS official, an FBI agent, and many, many others who are in on it.
And they're scared, OC. They're scared because Glenn Beck, without any facts, told them they should be scared.
How many will turn that fear into violence? Damned few I'm sure we both hope, but the potential is there. Your own math shows it.
Yes, I'm using a few leaps in logic, but it's not nearly as blatant as Beck's. He wants to basically say he can't be held accountable (please note--that was "accountable" and not "responsible") for the actions of any one who listens to him. That's a rather poor position to take when you're a commercial spokesperson. Those Cash for Gold guys want Beck's listeners to do what he says.
Again, I'm not demanding that Beck change his words, his tone, or his views. I'm a big fan of the ol' First Amendment so he's more than welcome to keep doing what he's doing. I will, however, offer a few knocks in his direction when he's lying, or, as in this case, trying to weasel away from his words, his tone, his views, and the context of how he expressed himself.
It's one thing to fight fire with fire. Too often ol' Glenn seems to be fighting fire with gasoline.
Glenn also warns about someone doing something stupid. He pleads with people not to do anything stupid. So if they're that lock step in sync with Beck, then they'll listen when he asks them, because they'll know he's talking directly to them, not to do anything stupid.
Bottom line, if there's someone out there that's capable of a violent act, he could just as easily listen to the rhetoric on the left and use that as the trigger.
It makes me laugh when people like huffington attack Beck.
Just because Beck didn't stare into the camera and slowly say, "the president is going to literally, physically kill you" doesn't mean that he's not guilty of using violent language and incendiary rhetoric.
In my opinion, "they are taking you to be slaughtered" qualifies as violent and incendiary rhetoric whether he meant it literally or not. It's like saying that hanging or burning someone in effigy isn't violent imagery because you "didn't mean it literally".
I'm so glad we two, absolute idiot to absolute idiot, agree.