About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Beck falsely claimed Dem candidates have not supported striking writers

January 25, 2008 3:13 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: On his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck repeatedly suggested that the top Democratic presidential candidates have not shown support for the ongoing Writers Guild strike. In fact, all of the Democratic front-runners have expressed support for the striking writers. John Edwards joined them on a Los Angeles picket line, and Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton each issued statements of support for the writers. The candidates also withdrew from a planned December 10 CBS News debate, forcing its cancellation.

29 Comments

On the January 23 edition of his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck repeatedly suggested that the top Democratic presidential candidates have not shown support for the ongoing Writers Guild strike, asking: "[W]hy haven't the pro-union Democratic candidates spoken up on the strike?" and "[W]hy haven't any of the Democratic candidates joined them on the picket line?" He added: "Are they laying low so they don't upset their Hollywood contributors?" In fact, John Edwards joined striking writers on a Los Angeles picket line on November 16, 2007; he carried a placard and said, "I'm proud to be with you in this march. I'm proud to be with you in this fight for justice. I am proud to be with you in this fight for fairness." On November 5, 2007 -- the day the strike began -- Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) released a statement saying: "I stand with the writers." A Politico article further reported that an Obama aide called the Writers Guild that day and asked, "What can we do to help?" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) also issued a statement of support on November 5: "I support the Writers Guild's pursuit of a fair contract that pays them for their work in all mediums."

Moreover, the candidates withdrew from a planned December 10 CBS News debate, forcing its cancellation. John and Elizabeth Edwards also canceled a scheduled appearance on ABC's The View, as did Michelle Obama. By contrast, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, a recipient of union endorsements himself, crossed picket lines when he appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno on January 2.

In contrast with Beck, who did not acknowledge the Democratic candidates' shows of support for the writers, CNN's Wolf Blitzer did so on the November 26 edition of The Situation Room, but suggested that in also taking contributions from entertainment executives, the candidates were "trying to have it both ways."

From the January 23 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: Plus, movie and TV writers still on strike, but why haven't any of the Democratic candidates joined them on the picket line? Are they laying low so they don't upset their Hollywood contributors? Hmm.

[...]

BECK: Oh, well, thank goodness the Hollywood writers are going to return to the negotiating table this week in hopes of saving us from shows like American Gladiators and the return of my personal favorite, Paradise Hotel.

But the real question is not when will they make their deal, but why haven't the pro-union Democratic candidates spoken up on the strike? Where, where, where, where have they been? I'll examine all of that in just a bit.

[...]

BECK: Coming up, if you want more proof that Hollywood is completely out of touch with the American mainstream, look no further than the Oscar nominees. And where are those liberals with the strikers and the writers? We'll look into it next.

[...]

BECK: Hollywood striking writers and the studio executives have said that they plan to meet this week for the very first time since early December, when their talks collapsed. Who's been paying attention? You know, might be good news for those of us who are really sick and tired of reconnecting with our family. I mean, whew.

But the most interesting side of this whole fiasco might be the political one. I want you to think about this. When was the last time that you saw a strike in our country where the Democrats haven't lined up to deliver hot coffee on the picket lines and denounce the big, bad corporation for keeping the man down? Well, where is Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama now? Where's John Edwards?

The writers are starting to ask this question, and they don't like the answer. Democrats just get too much money from Hollywood to risk screwing it all up. Or, do they like Hollywood's money and their propaganda tools, but they just don't want to be seen around the Hollywood people?

Screenwriter and former Clinton/Gore staffer Chris Jackson told the New York Post, quote, "I was hurt by learning the truth. The DNC (the Democratic National Committee) are in bed with big business. They are for change when it comes to using marketing slogans ... but they only use Hollywood to milk money out of us."

Michael Medved is a nationally syndicated talk radio host, a veteran film critic. Michael, which is it? Are they just -- they don't want to be seen around Hollywood because they just -- they know it's really bad for them, or are they just getting too much money?

MEDVED: Well, I think it's a combination of all of the above, of course. But the main thing is they gain absolutely nothing by getting involved in this very, very, very bitter dispute. It would be like getting involved between the baseball players and baseball management when the players went out on strike.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by tommy (January 25, 2008 3:20 pm ET)
         
      Medved is correct, it is absolutely none of the Democratic, or Republican, candidate's business involving themselves in this strike.  Beck is out there, again.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (January 25, 2008 3:27 pm ET)
           
        The fact Beck has to ask "[W]hy haven't any of the Democratic candidates joined them on the picket line?" shows he's talking out of his ass once again.

        Is it too much to ask these pundits know what they're talking about before they open their mouths?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (January 25, 2008 3:33 pm ET)
             
          Just as I criticize Edwards and others for engaging in "class warfare", the same criticism should be leveled at Beck for his "cultural warfare" as well, telling us how out of touch the Oscar nominated films are with the "American mainstream".......it's ridiculous.  
          Report Abuse
          • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (January 25, 2008 3:40 pm ET)
               
            I don't know which I mind more, ginning up a "culture war" for ratings or flat out not knowing what you're talking about and earning millions in spite of it.

            Either is dangerous on their own, combined they're lethal.

            I don't think there's any moral equivalency between Edwards and O'Reilly, Beck, Gibson and the other culture warriors.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (January 25, 2008 3:42 pm ET)
               
            I'm stepping in a cow pie by responding to the mention of Edwards...however,

            class warfare? All this "war" this, "war" that...no one I know has taken a bullet in "class warfare."

            Edwards sees a divide between the super rich and the poor and shrinking middle class. He's describing a reality. It's not likely to get better by ignoring it.

            I'm sure that you will spend pages arguing, but I gotta go. Have a good weekend.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by MiddleLeft (January 25, 2008 4:20 pm ET)
             

          Is it too much to ask these pundits know what they're talking about before they open their mouths?

          Beck, even more than the others, seems to simply "make up the facts"  on the fly if it supports his story of the moment.  Ignore Tommy's mis-direction. 

          "Yes Beck is bad but there are other bad things too, in my opinion".

           

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (January 25, 2008 4:28 pm ET)
               
            I don't buy into the "everything is morally equivalent to everything else" defense conservatives fall back on when they have to defend an indefensible position.

            It's as bad as the "Clinton did it first" argument they used to use when they still believed W was the Second Coming.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (January 25, 2008 5:10 pm ET)
               
            Did you even read what I wrote, or is it just your reflexive idiocy showing?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (January 25, 2008 5:34 pm ET)
                 
              ...as well as their penchant to fall back on personal insults when all else fails.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (January 25, 2008 5:36 pm ET)
                   
                In an effort to avoid another multi-page thread about nothing:

                pen·chant: a strong inclination, taste, or liking for something: a penchant for outdoor sports.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (January 25, 2008 5:41 pm ET)
                   
                Apparently it was an apt description considering the "mis-direction" comment made no sense.  If you want to scold people for their personal insults, you'll be plenty busy with your fellow liberals and their way with words - but be the hall monitor if you so choose.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (January 25, 2008 5:53 pm ET)
                     
                  ...as well as the "liberals do it too so I'm not personally responsibility for what I type" argument.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (January 25, 2008 3:40 pm ET)
           
        Wrong. The candidates have every bit as much at stake in a healthy labor movement as they do a healthy economy, in fact the two are connected.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (January 25, 2008 3:42 pm ET)
             
          It's none of their business, they are not being asked to mediate, nor should they involve themselves in somebody else's disputes.  I disagree with you and Beck.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by roundhouse (January 25, 2008 3:44 pm ET)
               
            Fine disagree.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by roundhouse (January 25, 2008 6:29 pm ET)
                 
              Disagree. But your dead wrong.

              It is the business of every American who so chooses to get involved. It's not like a labor strike is private, in fact strikes are staged with the intention of getting as many supporters involved as possible.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (January 25, 2008 6:37 pm ET)
                   
                Of course they're private, they are between the employer and their representatives and the employee and theirs.  Of course you want to inflame the situation and force people to choose sides in a dispute they have no part in, because that is labor's tactics, but it's ridiculous.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by BillJ-MN (January 25, 2008 7:45 pm ET)
                     

                  No, it's not ridiculous for labor to enlist public support.  It's very smart.  When there is a workers' strike with which I'm in agreement I refuse to give the company my business and I make a point of letting them know that I'm doing so.  I appreciate the effort of the union to let me know of their situation.

                  Is the strike none of my business?  Am I out of line trying to influence the resolution?  Hell no!!  I consider my involvement to be responsible, supportive of labor and even patriotic.

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by roundhouse (January 25, 2008 8:37 pm ET)
                     
                  BillJ is right. It's patriotic to show one's support for labor strikes and I'll add that it is not a private matter because the triumphs and gains of workers are good for us all.

                  And since you're assigning motives to my opinion I might as well point out your anti-democratic, corporatist motive is to keep labor weak and compliant.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by historygeek001 (January 28, 2008 2:55 pm ET)
                     

                  Tommy,

                  The WGA strike is not private, every strike is public.  Many strikes-though by no means all-are, at their core, arguments about one set of people profiting from the work done by another set.  There needs to be a balance between workers and management all across the board, so strikes are definitely public business.

                  If you have paid attention, the WGA is asking for a share of internet profits.  They aren't demanding a huge share, simply a comparable amount to that which they currently get in other venues.  They currently get NOTHING, and this is a significant source of income.  Before you decide which group is in the right imagine yourself on both sides.  Remember, the writers are not the wealthy ones in this dispute.

                  Report Abuse
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (January 25, 2008 3:20 pm ET)
         
      Beck, I don't think you've really explained why I should care, either way.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by roundhouse (January 25, 2008 3:43 pm ET)
         
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXWJtSgSnjE

      "It's a great privilege for me to be here with all of you today...to walk with you, to walk the lines with you...because what you represent and what you are standing for is to make sure that everybody in America gets a fair chance. we have to strengthen the union movement in America...it is the only way that we will ensure that these big corporate conglomerates don't take over the United States of America." John Edwards, on the picket line



      Later, speaking to the press:

      "The men and women who are part of the writers guild and are part of this strike, are actually the heart and soul of the creative effort. These men and women deserve a fair chance...these are people who work hard for a living....my party, the Democratic Party is supposed to represent the people, it's supposed to represent workers in America and we have to make sure their voices are heard...one of the things that we have a big problem with in America is the conglomeration and consolidation of the media. " - John Edwards

      Beck is an idiot.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Clevenative (January 25, 2008 4:31 pm ET)
         

      Uhhh, Glenn McFly - could it be because they are out campaigning for the Presidency of The United States?

      I can almost guarantee that, if the strike is still on, you'll see images of all 3 of the Democratic candidates joining in the picket lines once they get to campaigning in L.A..

      Of course then we'll see the Doughboy pasting those images up behind him poking fun of their "pandering the Hollywood weirdos".

      The man's a total idiot!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by dbeden4153 (January 25, 2008 4:45 pm ET)
         
      GLENN BECK EVERYBODY!
      (clapping)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dbeden4153 (January 25, 2008 5:13 pm ET)
         
      BTW, if you have the stomach for it, check out CD"s blog.  He tries to say Obama is a scab because he went on the Letterman show.  And I guess someone had to explain to him that Letterman made a deal with the WGA.  Hilarious.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by moe (January 25, 2008 5:21 pm ET)
         

      The Beaver has gone from mildly entertaining (in a mud-wrestling kind of way) to pathetic.  After watching this, I actually started to feel sorry for the guy.  He's so frequently out of his depth on the topic of the day that it makes me squirm.  Beaver, repeat after me...puff pieces...puff pieces.

      Good luck lil' fella...we're pulling for you! 

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.