About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Beck, conservative media use violent rhetoric suggesting White House will retaliate against Fox News and opponents

October 21, 2009 5:17 pm ET — 91 Comments

Following the White House's recent criticism of Fox News for its conservative slant, Glenn Beck and other conservative media have fearmongered that the Obama administration will harm Fox News and its supporters -- physically or otherwise -- because of their opposition to its policies. Since September alone, Beck has asked listeners to "pray for protection," compared Fox News to Jews during the Holocaust, and suggested the White House was pointing missiles at Fox News, and Newt Gingrich asked on Hannity if the administration would subject Fox News commentators to the Chinese "Cultural Revolution" because of their objections.

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.

EMBED

Beck, conservative media suggest Fox News and opponents are in danger from White House

 

Beck compares Fox News to Jews during the Holocaust, other news organizations to silent bystanders. On his October 13 radio show, Beck said: "When they're done with Fox, and you decide to speak out on something. The old, 'first they came for the Jews, and I wasn't Jewish.' When you have a question, and you believe that something should be asked, they're a -- totally fine with you right now; they have no problem with you. When they're done with Fox and talk radio, do you really think they're going to leave you alone if you want to ask a tough question? Do you really think that a man who has never had to stand against tough questions and has as much power as he does -- do you really believe after he takes out the number one news network, do you really think that this man is then not going to turn on you? That you and your little organization is going to cause him any hesitation at all not to take you out?" [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 10/13/09]

 

Beck airs anonymous "concerned parent" with distorted face, voice to attack Obama adviser's reference to Mao. After White House communications director Anita Dunn said during a speech at a Maryland high school that Mao Zedong was one of her "favorite political philosophers," Beck hosted a "concerned parent" to speak about the comment, but distorted his voice and shaded his face. [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 10/19/09]

 

Gingrich -- who previously quoted Mao -- wonders if Dunn wants to subject Fox commentators to a "Cultural Revolution." On the October 19 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity asked Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich: "What do you make about the White House's orchestrated, continued attacks on the Fox News Channel, led by Anita Dunn, who has great admiration for, quote, 'one of her philosophers' -- you know, one of the biggest mass-murderers in the history of mankind, Mao? And more importantly, do you view this as an enemies list?" Gingrich replied that he "ha[s] this interesting idea of asking Anita Dunn if this is her idea of a Cultural Revolution, and if she really wishes that she could get Sean Hannity and the other Fox commentators to go to a farm and work the way Mao got sent the intellectuals out," adding that he believes in a "free society." [Hannity, 10/19/09]

Rove: "[T]hey're going to come hard at you, and they're going to cut your legs off." On the October 18 edition of Fox News Sunday, Fox News contributor Karl Rove said: "[T]his is an administration that's getting very arrogant and slippery in its dealings with people. And if you dare to oppose them, they're going to come hard at you, and they're going to cut your legs off. ... Fox is asking tough questions. Fox has got on the opinion side of it some very tough critics of the administration. They're conflating the news side and the opinion side in order to -- in order to attack a media outlet. Again, it's undignified for the president of the United States to be doing." Later, Rove said that "it is demeaning the office of the president by taking the president and moving him from a person who ought to be talking to everybody and communicating through every available channel to saying, 'If you oppose me, if you question me, if you're too tough on me, by gosh, me and my people are not going to -- are not going to come on. We're going to penalize you.' And that just is wrong, fundamentally wrong."

Fox News hosts suggest they're on an "enemies list." Fox News personalities joined other conservative media figures in fearmongering that the White House has an "enemies list" and that Fox News is -- in Beck's words -- "another enemy" that "warmongers" in the Obama administration would fight with "missiles pointed right at Fox." Hannity claimed the White House is "promising retribution." Media figures previously baselessly suggested that people who reportedly claimed to have received unsolicited email from Obama adviser David Axelrod may have been added to a White House "enemies list" after emails they sent that were critical of the Obama administration were purportedly forwarded to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Beck, other conservatives routinely suggest that the White House will retaliate against opposition with violence

 

Beck: "Just pray for protection, please." On his radio show, Beck told his listeners he is "fighting for you and ... your children" and asked them to "pray" for "safety" and "protection":

 

BECK: You know, I said a year ago -- I said you needed to find your voice. And I said I think you'll -- we're coming to a time when voices like mine will disappear. It would be easy to say, "Yeah. Yeah. Look at -- Van Jones is out." Which I think is a mistake, because I think it makes him more dangerous, and I'll explain why here in a second.

But the other thing is -- is I find myself in amazing position. John Podesta just issued a statement about Van Jones and me. There is Soros money now being funneled to stop me. The biggest names, the most powerful people on the planet on the left -- I've told you before, they're not going to go away easy. There were billions of dollars, if not trillions of dollars, at stake. There is -- this is the, you know, if anybody wants to think this as a game about, you know, get him fired and get him fired and slow the White House down because it's a Republican thing, you're sadly mistaken.

This game is for keeps. This is who controls the United States of America and its destiny. Is it you? Or is it a group of elites? I'm fighting for you and me, my children, your children. I would ask you for one thing. Please, keep me in your prayers, keep my staff in your prayers, for safety, for wisdom, please. I'm asking you. Because I -- I just will tell you, as I have before, we have the truth on our side; we also have God on our side. If you believe the founders were divinely inspired, well, with firm reliance on divine providence we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. Just pray for protection, please. [The Glenn Beck Program, 9/08/09]

Beck on Imus: "If I'm found dead in the streets, it's either Van Jones or Don Imus." During an appearance on Fox Business' Imus In the Morning, Beck -- making an apparent reference to his witch hunt against White House advisers including Van Jones -- said, "If I'm found dead in the streets, it's either Van Jones or Don Imus." [Imus In the Morning, 10/5/09]

 

Beck invokes civil rights marchers having fire hoses turned on them to spur opposition to health reform. During his Fox News show, Beck said, "America, let me tell you something. If you don't stop this, they will -- as Bill Maher has suggested -- drag you to it. It's exactly what they're trying to do." Then, showing images of civil rights protesters being blasted with water from fire hoses, he said: "Nobody wants the health care plan, and yet, they're still doing it. We must try. We must now peacefully stand up and stand together -- and I do mean peacefully. I mean, just like these guys did. Can you show -- can you show them? These guys, they were standing up peacefully. Otherwise, they will drag us into their brainiac policies through an emergency. If you don't stand up, they will -- using their Cloward and Piven strategy from the 1960s -- collapse this country and our financial system, and then reboot with their new America." [Glenn Beck, 10/14/09]

 

Beck: "I fear a Reichstag moment, a -- God forbid -- another 9-11, something that will turn this machine on." During an interview with Newsmax.com in which he discussed opposition to Obama's Federal Communication Commission policies, Beck said: "I fear an event. I fear a Reichstag moment, a -- God forbid -- another 9-11, something that will turn this machine on, and power will be seized and voices will be silenced. God help us all.'' [Newsmax.com, 10/7/09]

Beck: They're "out to get" me, "destroy me," "Sarah Palin me," to "intimidate you." On his radio show, Beck said: "It's only a matter of time before they find a way to destroy me. And that's fine. And they're going to try to use me to intimidate you. Because anybody else gets out of line, that'll happen to you, too. Don't think that what happened to Sarah Palin didn't go through my mind when I saw my character on Saturday Night Live, and we all laughed, and my wife said, 'My gosh, they have you down. I mean, that is really -- I mean, even your mannerisms and your moves.' Don't think that I didn't feel like, 'Oh, my gosh, they're going to Sarah Palin me.' That's what they want you to understand. You get out of line, we'll destroy you." Later, Beck said that he's "tired" of "the thought of someone always constantly out to get you," and then said he "can't go out in public with [his] family anymore." [The Glenn Beck Program, 10/1/09]

 

Savage: Obama administration is "a cornered animal," and "something horrible could happen." On his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage said: "I don't know where this ends up. I'll tell you what worries me, is that -- is that you think that [Obama's] finished. That's your mistake. A cornered animal is very, very dangerous. This team -- team Obama -- is very cornered right now, and they're very dangerous -- very dangerous. Cornered animal -- dangerous. They're cornered right now. They've been outsmarted by North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia. They have now been outsmarted by even the Olympic committee. I mean, even they know that the American people are on to them. So now they're in a corner. And don't think that they're quitters and don't think they're going to give up. Something -- something horrible could happen. You understand this? That's what the whole story is."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (October 21, 2009 5:21 pm ET)
      11  
      The WHITE HOUSE is right to call FOX for what it is,a FAR RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA ORGANIZATION.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by right ON (October 21, 2009 5:26 pm ET)
      5 12
      Come on MMfA, this can't be some shocker to you? Anyone that thought after the WH got down in the media mud and put Fox in their crosshairs, that Fox wouldn't plaster a target on their back and whine about it 24/7, doesn't know Fox very well. And you'd think with the minute by minute monitoring done to them by you, MMfA, you'd know them pretty well and the tactics they'd employ to turn this publicity circus to their advantage.

      You can't push this attack Fox strategy and be a cheerleader for delegitimizing them and then whine about the "violent rhetoric" they are now using to fight back. It's what happens when you tangle with the likes of these people.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (October 21, 2009 5:54 pm ET)
        12  
        The target was already there, and the mud was already being slung at it 24/7. If you think stating the obvious and countering disinformation is "getting down into the media mud," I think you're subscribing to a false equivalency.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (October 21, 2009 5:58 pm ET)
          6 1
          I think you're subscribing to a false equivalency.

          Cue Gomer Pyle:

          Suprise, surprise!!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by right ON (October 21, 2009 6:06 pm ET)
          3 12
          No such false equivalency. If you think it's time and effort well spent for the White House to play and cat and mouse with an illegitimate cable news network, we disagree.

          I suspect it has much more to do with a little delicious liberal payback to satisfy the collective hairs that stand up on their backs every time Fox increases their ratings. This is what happens when you let your emotions run rampant over your common sense. When Fox gets bigger ratings as a result of all this priceless publicity, what's your next strategy for bringing them down?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Conchobhar (October 21, 2009 6:29 pm ET)
            6  
            I'm not interested in a strategy to bring them down. I am down, however, with Mark Twain's dictum that a lie can travel half-way round the world before the truth gets it's pants on. Lies that go unchallenged as they're repeated take on a life of their own. As long as Fox is confined to the fraction of the populace that loved Bush to the end, the damage they do is containable. To that end, they have to be called out, often and effectively. Sunshine, as the saying goes, is the best disinfectant.

            BTW, isn't referencing common sense flirting with Marxism?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by right ON (October 21, 2009 6:36 pm ET)
              2 9
              I never said they shouldn't be corrected or challenged, I have been very specific in saying it is not the WH's function to do it. When the office of the POTUS even mentions Fox in any public fashion, they are by default elevated. And then to say they are not a legitimate news network is ridiculous, they just legitimized them. There are plenty of attack dogs that can go after Fox and expose their stuff - but I guess the left doesn't think any of them have worked so far so now the WH is getting in the game.

              Sometimes you have to use restraint and smarts to defeat the "opposition", and that is by understanding the consequences of what you are doing, not just how it feels.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by all your eyes (October 21, 2009 7:32 pm ET)
                12  
                I don't know how you manage the mental gymnastics: Fox News is legitimized by being called out as liars and smear merchants?

                It is the President's job to deliver on his campaign promises, to pass legislation. It becomes very difficult to pass legislation when the public is perpetually misinformed, and when the administration is constantly under attack by an organization with the kind of amplification Fox is able to muster, especially when the rest of the media is following Fox like lemmings off a cliff.

                Therefore, it is the President's job to use his own megaphone to identify and hold accountable the offending party or parties, in this case Rupert Murdoch's Frankenstein. He is protecting his own prerogatives, by inoculating his administration from Fox's completely bogus crusade to bring it down.

                The media is supposed to serve a very important function in a democracy. Fox News plays a dangerous game, manipulating and abusing its influence in our society for its own cynical purposes. And it's not just the money. Murdoch himself has decided on this scorched-earth philosophy. It is exceptionally dangerous to the very fabric of the Republic.

                Obama has scored a knockout punch. Fox can no longer be viewed through the prism of its own alternate reality. Not by the other media organizations who have so eagerly taken their cues, and not by the public.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by DellDolly (October 22, 2009 2:44 am ET)
                  3  
                  It is the President's job to use his megaphone, his bully pulpit, to lead Americans sometimes when citizens wouldn't come to the 'correct' decision if left to their own devices. That's how we had to begin the path towards racial equality, isn't it?

                  Great post, btw.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (October 23, 2009 4:05 pm ET)
                  1  
                  "I don't know how you manage the mental gymnastics: Fox News is legitimized by being called out as liars and smear merchants?"

                  I guess that's how some people may choose to look at it. I suppose if you think the National Enquirer has been legitimized in their search for the werewolf.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by clams casino (October 21, 2009 8:07 pm ET)
                7  
                I don't think "legitimized" means what you think it means.

                And talk about a false equivalency:

                Author by right ON (1 hour and 53 minutes ago)
                No such false equivalency. If you think it's time and effort well spent for the White House to play and cat and mouse with an illegitimate cable news network, we disagree.


                Fox is a 24 hour "news" channel that spends the majority of its airtime attacking and/or attempting to undermine the adminisration. And on the other side, Anita Dunn made a comment about Fox not being a legitimate news organization. That's your "cat and mouse" game? The only time and effort being wasted on this is by the press who keep trying to turn it into a war.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by my4cents (October 21, 2009 9:31 pm ET)
                  4  
                  None of CNN, MSNBC and FOX NEWS are stated 'news' channels. For them to be one, they have to report only news, no opinion shows. That's OK.
                  They only cover news at the top and bottom of the hour, and continuously with chyrons, and this is where Fox News muddles things up.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Cinque (October 22, 2009 6:16 pm ET)
                      1
                    Read this article from November 2004.

                    http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2004/11/03/op_press.html

                    The Fox attack is nothing new.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by Cinque (October 22, 2009 6:14 pm ET)
                    1
                  Fox has every right to attack the administration. To do do so is un-american.

                  Forth Estate, Fourth Estate !
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (October 23, 2009 1:13 pm ET)
                    1  
                    They don't have to right to do it with baseless attacks and not be challenged on that behavior! They don't have the right to omit relevant data to deceive their listeners and not be called to account for those deceptions!

                    Your statement is a strawman argument. No one has ever said that the Obama Administration shouldn't be challenged, dum-dum.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (October 23, 2009 4:09 pm ET)
                    1  
                    Yep, they have the right. They have the right to say whatever crazy nonsense Beck dreams up while his OnStar infiltrates the chip in his head. And the administration has every right to point out the nonsense that Fox News spews everyday. Just as you have the right to only believe what Fox News tells you and to appear utterly foolish in front of any adults of average intelligence you may encounter. That is your right. I wouldn't suggest it, but it is your right.

                    Fourth and Long, Fourth and Long!
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by MiddleLeft (October 22, 2009 11:29 am ET)
                3  
                I never said they shouldn't be corrected or challenged, I have been very specific in saying it is not the WH's function to do it. When the office of the POTUS even mentions Fox in any public fashion, they are by default elevated. And then to say they are not a legitimate news network is ridiculous, they just legitimized them.

                The concern troll is worried that Fox might be legitimized.

                That's funny!

                Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (October 23, 2009 4:03 pm ET)
            1  
            I say, Good. Bring on the crazy. Ramp it up. If the birthers and deathers and secessionists are not crazy enough let's pretend like the government is using OnStar to track Glenn Beck and send him to the wrong destinations. Let's see just how nuts these crazies can get. This is what the White House wants. Let Fox News speak for the Republican party and let it be as crazy as hell. "Bringing down" Fox News is probably the last thing they want. Fox News does nothing but alienate the Republican party from independent voters. Carry on, Beck and crazies!
            Report Abuse
          • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (October 23, 2009 5:20 pm ET)
            1  
            right on, you are still a righht wing nut job.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (October 21, 2009 6:42 pm ET)
        6  
        Did you even read this before you spouted your kneejerk reaction?

        I haven't seen either the White House or MMFA "whining" about the violent rhetoric.

        But even if they are legitimately complaining about the violent rhetoric(not whining), the problem would be the violent rhetoric. FoxNews isn't justified as a result of the White House's actions to react that way!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by right ON (October 21, 2009 6:47 pm ET)
          1 8
          "I haven't seen either the White House or MMFA "whining" about the violent rhetoric"

          Read the headline to this thread SnoozySuzy, MMfA is certainly "whining", and the WH probably will on the upcoming Sunday talk shows as that is their apparent strategy now, or did you just spout your kneejerk reaction without reading it?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (October 21, 2009 7:33 pm ET)
            8  
            Nah, the Sunday shows will have McCain on instead.

            Nobody is whining about the violent rhetoric, unless of course pointing something out all of a sudden is "whining".
            Report Abuse
            • Author by srichardson (October 21, 2009 7:43 pm ET)
              7  
              Why is it whining when they are just supplying facts about Beck and others saying the WH is targeting them? Everytime the liberals react to the right wing lies, the right wing brings out the whining card. We have every right to address the hate speech that the neocons are spouting and it is not whining. For Beck to say, "If you find me dead in the street, it was probably VanJones or Don Imus" is ridiculous. Borderline paranoia. The man is a loon and he must be called out for his disgusting claims or else people will start to believe it.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Lizinbklyn (October 23, 2009 12:24 pm ET)
                2  
                DUH, faux doesn't use FACTS, E-V-E-R. They cite polls only favorable to their policies.

                Greta said the other night that Cheney attacked Obama for 'dithering' on decision to send troops to Afghanistan [actually she said "OUCH"]. Interesting that Greta NEVER mentioned how long Bush's General's request for MORE TROOPS was sitting on the Bush/Cheney desks.

                Faux has Cheney's speech beforehand. Faux didn't refuse one statement made by Cheney. Is that possible??

                The words 'facts' and 'faux' are disengenuous . .

                *
                Report Abuse
            • Author by clams casino (October 21, 2009 8:16 pm ET)
              7 1
              That's always been RightON's definition of whining. If you point something out, you are whining about it.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by nativeofsf (October 21, 2009 9:13 pm ET)
                6  
                Thank you clams. righton evinces all the fetid foam of Tommy while containing all that dunderheaded logic of yore.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by all your eyes (October 21, 2009 7:36 pm ET)
            4  
            So you admit, you only read the headline?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (October 22, 2009 2:49 am ET)
            3  
            No, MMFA is not whining.

            Documenting something is not equivalent to whining about something.

            But since you seem unable to be consistent, you might think that a feeble, peevish, childish complaint is equivalent to supporting an assertion or claim with evidence or decisive information.

            They aren't the same.

            Now, your posts? Whining.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (October 22, 2009 10:06 am ET)
        3  
        I don't think this is a "shock" RO, I think MMFA is just pointing out Fox's extreme reaction.

        Can you imagine how the Bushies would have reacted if this had happened on their watch?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Cinque (October 22, 2009 6:12 pm ET)
          1
        Fox News Rope-A-Dopes Obama ... I love it, the man-child cannot handle the big leagues.

        Roger Ailes is watching his investment $$'s grow like crazy.

        Keep it up lefties, we love kickin' yer butts!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (October 23, 2009 4:11 pm ET)
             
          Come on, Cirque you can do crazy better than this. Tell us more how the African are ruining this country like you did in the other thread. Come on. Tell us more how we should blame the Africans.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by raine315 (October 21, 2009 5:30 pm ET)
      9 1
      Oh puh leeze!
      If The White Houe was really out to destroy Fox News they would toss commentator Ollie North in jail for Iran Contra, in cell next to Rove, Beck would be locked away wearing a straight jacket in a padded room and they would give Geraldo Rivera the go ahead to wear a tshirt displaying the Puerto Rican flag while he does his show
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (October 21, 2009 5:33 pm ET)
      11  
      All the White House has done was state the truth, which was CONFIRMED by a Fox spokesperson. The evening programming on Fox is NOT news, it is strictly phony conservative opinion. That's all. The White House confirmed that the President would appear on Fox, but with the understanding that Fox's format was more opinion than news and that it was representative of the "opposition." The only thing which has been stated which was false was the Fox spokesperson saying that Fox viewers were intelligent enough to know the difference between opinion and news. As is evidenced here daily, they apparently are NOT.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by kydem09 (October 21, 2009 6:07 pm ET)
      1 14
      You consider this violent rhetoric? Gimme a break!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (October 21, 2009 6:21 pm ET)
        4  
        Whats missing, a proported threat to nuc them?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ScienceBuff (October 21, 2009 6:26 pm ET)
        6  
        At the very least it's overblown melodrama and, yes, much of it qualifies as violent rhetoric. It certainly matches that description better than do accusations that the White House "attacked" Faux. Nothing the White House has said qualifies as an attack.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (October 21, 2009 7:20 pm ET)
        9  
        For a black and white thinker such as yourself, this probably isn't "violent rhetoric." I am guessing your example would be Fox saying the WH has threatened to kill them.

        Was Beck's statement not analogous to comparing the WH's "threats" to genocide?

        Do prayers for safety not suggest "violence?" Is Beck just really clumsy? Is that your explanation here?

        What do "cornered animals" do in your opinion?

        I can see how you and those who think similarly don't find this rhetoric "violent." After all, no one is a racist unless they directly use racial slurs, are they?

        Define "violent rhetoric" for us, kydem, so we can understand where you are coming from.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by kydem09 (October 22, 2009 7:12 am ET)
            4
          There is a common practice at this site to read things between the lines aren't really there. I think that's more dangerous than any of the comments listed above.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (October 22, 2009 9:51 am ET)
            1  
            So, you're being sarcastic? One person agreed with you (or at least gave you a thumbs up) on this rhetoric not being "violent." So, define "violent rhetoric" for us.

            Funny you mention reading between the lines. All of us do that with other commentators (i.e. Rush injecting race at every turn) and we're told by people like you that he's not a racist.

            When should we read between the lines and when should things be literal? You can't have it both ways.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by kydem09 (October 22, 2009 10:58 am ET)
                3
              There's nothing literal or otherwise included in the above quotes that I consider "violent." I think that's a stretch.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by friedbergboy1422 (October 22, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
                2  
                So, why don't you answer my question and define violent rhetoric for us.

                Then, answer these:

                1) What is Beck doing by invoking the Jews in the Holocaust? If that is not a violent image, please tell me what it is. Once the Jews were "come for," what happened to them?

                2)Why does Beck want prayers for protection?

                3) What happened during 9/11 that wasn't violent?

                4) What does a cornered animal do?

                If these aren't examples of "violent rhetoric" please explain why.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by kydem09 (October 22, 2009 1:58 pm ET)
                    4
                  You're taking snippets of what was said out of context.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by friedbergboy1422 (October 22, 2009 2:47 pm ET)
                    2  
                    Here is what you said, full post:

                    "You consider this violent rhetoric? Gimme a break!"

                    I asked you to define violent rhetoric and you answered:

                    "There's nothing literal or otherwise included in the above quotes that I consider "violent." I think that's a stretch."

                    So, I asked you again to define the term "violent rhetoric." You said I took things out of context.

                    What was unfair and taken out of context. Please answer why the above questions do not suggest violent rhetoric so I can give you a "break."

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by kydem09 (October 22, 2009 5:35 pm ET)
                        1
                      You and I probably have similar definitions for violent rhetoric, however, I think you're exaggerating the meaning of the quotes to fit your definition. For one thing, the Jews comment is meant to warn people to be involved, even if something does not directly affect them. To label the "Jews" post and many of the others as violent rhetoric is ridiculous. The highlighted comments in this article are largely allegorical.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (October 22, 2009 6:38 pm ET)
                        1  
                        Yes, they are allegories. Violent allegories.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by kydem09 (October 23, 2009 9:06 am ET)
                            1
                          That's a matter of opinion, yours not mine. I've noticed how much the left seems to see violence and racism around every corner. Must be a depressing life to lead to always see the negative about everything and to be so angry all the time. I'll say a prayer for all of you.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by DellDolly (October 23, 2009 1:17 pm ET)
                            1  
                            No, it's not really a matter of opinion.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (October 23, 2009 1:41 pm ET)
                            1  
                            Why don't you answer my questions? I'm not mad at all, just curious as to why you can't answer simple questions.

                            Do cornered animals react violent or peacefully?
                            What happened when they came for the Jews?
                            Why would Beck want prayers for his safety?

                            Please be honest enough to have a discussion and not avoid easy questions.
                            Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (October 23, 2009 4:13 pm ET)
                    1  
                    I would be curious to hear how you explain Beck being worried about his safety if he is not worried about violence. How do you explain that away?
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by kydem09 (October 22, 2009 11:02 am ET)
              2 4
              And yes, I think you read between the lines with what Limbaugh says and see racism when there is none. I don't think he has said anything overtly racist, nor do I believe he is a racist. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he says or the way he says it, I just think you all read much more into his comments than what's actually there. There is a culture in our society of immediately pouncing on people who dare mention race as racist, even if what they said was not. It minimizes true racism in this country to do that and should be stopped. That goes for both sides of the aisle.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by The New Pilgrims (October 22, 2009 11:21 am ET)
                3  
                Once again, kydem09 absolutely NAILS it.

                When Rush sings "Barack the Magic Negro," liberals falsely say it's racist. But as kydem09 knows, it's actually just Rush's heartfelt way of tipping his fedora to uppity Negroes.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by kydem09 (October 22, 2009 1:57 pm ET)
                    5
                  The song mocks an article penned by someone at the LA Times. It has nothing to do with race. But again, this is a point you refuse to see because you view the world through "colored" glasses like so many on the left.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by friedbergboy1422 (October 22, 2009 2:50 pm ET)
                    2  
                    The song has nothing to do with race?

                    Hmmmmm, here are the lyrics, and its sung in a very stereotypical manner:

                    Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.
                    The L.A. Times, they called him that
                    ‘Cause he’s not authentic like me.
                    Yeah, the guy from the L.A. paper
                    Said he makes guilty whites feel good
                    They’ll vote for him, and not for me
                    ‘Cause he’s not from the hood.

                    See, real black men, like Snoop Dog,
                    Or me, or Farrakhan
                    Have talked the talk, and walked the walk.
                    Not come in late and won!

                    Oh, Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C.
                    The L.A. Times, they called him that
                    ‘Cause he’s black, but not authentically.
                    Oh, Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C.
                    The L.A. Times, they called him that
                    ‘Cause he’s black, but not authentically.

                    Some say Barack’s “articulate”
                    And bright and new and “clean.”
                    The media sure loves this guy,
                    A white interloper’s dream!
                    But, when you vote for president,
                    Watch out, and don’t be fooled!
                    Don’t vote the Magic Negro in –
                    ‘Cause —

                    ’Cause I won’t have nothing after all these years of sacrifice
                    And I won’t get justice. This is about justice. This isn’t about me, it’s about justice.
                    It’s about buffet. I don’t have no buffet and there won’t be any church contributions,
                    And there’ll be no cash in the collection plate.
                    There ain’t gonna be no cash money, no walkin’ around money, no phoning money.
                    Now, Barack going to come in here and ........

                    http://www.monacome.com/2008/12/barack-magic-negro-lyrics-video.html

                    I'm sure the stereotypical voice and bad grammar would be the same if they were singing about a white guy, eh?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by pilotx (October 23, 2009 3:47 am ET)
                      2  
                      Good observation fried. I notice kydem had no retort. Let me try for him "oh no Rush didn't mean that to be racist. I mean he HAD to make the song and write those specific lyrics because a Black man wrote an article with the same title". Or something to that effect.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by kydem09 (October 23, 2009 9:07 am ET)
                          2
                        Just didn't think it was worth a response. There's nothing I can say to lead you all away from your desire to see racism in everything. I think it's very sad and I'll pray for you.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Ruby (October 23, 2009 9:40 am ET)
                          2  
                          How is it a stretch to see racism in those lyrics?
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by friedbergboy1422 (October 23, 2009 1:45 pm ET)
                          1  
                          Again, he was at least race-baiting, Rush was, if not being racist.

                          If the song wasn't racist, why did Rush use bad grammar in his lyrics and use a stereotypical "black" voice?

                          Kydem, if you want to have an honest discussion, we can. If you want to throw cliches around, you can, but you look dishonest and not serious. Its really up to you.

                          If you don't see racism in the song, do you at least see race-baiting?

                          When you don't define the standards by which you are judging things (like when I asked for your definition of violent rhetoric, you said it was close to mine, but obviously, that's not true.), we can't discuss anything because you won't/can't explain the lens through which you see the world.

                          For that reason, I'll say a prayer for you.
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (October 23, 2009 4:15 pm ET)
                      2  
                      That song has NOTHING to do with race? Wow. How far into a pretzel do you have to twist yourself to justify that statement?
                      Report Abuse
    • Author by only_myschly3567 (October 21, 2009 6:45 pm ET)
      5  
      If you just cropped out select words and parts of the sentences (Fox News-style) Karl Rove would be making perfect sense... As long as you thought he was talking about the W Bush-administration that is.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by srichardson (October 21, 2009 7:36 pm ET)
      7  
      It's hypocrisy for Beck to say God is on his side. I seriously doubt that God approves of Glenn Beck and the filthy, dirty lies coming out of his mouth. I seriously doubt that God is proud of these neocons who make up lies and use God's name to do harm to others. People like Beck incorporate christianity into their work to draw in the uninformed, ignorant (and I mean ignorant of true facts) religious crowd. They know exactly what to say to rile up the christian sect. They call Obama the messiah, the potus. They know saying this will upset the christian people. It's immoral and disgusting that Beck would use God's name to back up his hate speech, his damaging rhetoric. It's hypocrisy at it's finest.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nativeofsf (October 21, 2009 9:23 pm ET)
        2 1
        While I agree with what you wrote, srichardson, G-d's name is not God.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by National_Insecurity (October 22, 2009 12:58 am ET)
        1  
        I think you mean blasphemy not hypocrisy.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Cheney2012 (October 22, 2009 12:20 pm ET)
          5
        Please cite one Beck 'lie'
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fishgirl26 (October 22, 2009 12:35 pm ET)
          2  
          Should we start w/ the story of how his mother died?? How does he go from his butt surgery and saying that healthcare is failing and then he says we have the best care in the world? Fema camps? Now his stupid ONSTAR theory. Clearly he's nuts. BTW, Cheney 2012?? YES!! Cheney in jail by 2012!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (October 23, 2009 4:16 pm ET)
             
          Beck actually admitted he lied on the View. He couldn't even stand up to a panel of old women. They broke him down in 1 minute and had him confessing to lying about them. But, don't worry, the next day when he was back speaking to his sycophants (like yourself) he was back to denying it and being the tough guy. I am sure you bought every word of it.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (October 23, 2009 5:31 pm ET)
           
        sirrichardson, amen, very well said.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by panz (October 21, 2009 9:33 pm ET)
        5
      Shouldn't comment on what you don't watch cowards. I watch Beck and the liberals are the cowards.

      Oh yeah...forgot...I'm a Democrat. Kick the liberals out and take back our Party. Liberals are not Democrats.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (October 22, 2009 9:52 am ET)
           
        So, are you saying that these people aren't using violent rhetoric here? In your mind, what is violent rhetoric?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (October 22, 2009 12:32 pm ET)
        1  
        Is that Democrat or Dixiecrat, panzer?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mycos2679 (October 23, 2009 3:26 am ET)
        1  
        Let me guess.... A Southerner with roots that go back to a time when the Democrats were the right-wing party that protected the wealthy few? A time that still sees many southern "red-dog" Democrats desperately trying to stop the march of history and progress?..Dems whose idealogy still remains to the right of all the rest of America; even to the right of the current GOP?

        Time you caught on to the political manipulations they have successfully used against you, a well orchestrated campaign intended to convince the larger, slow-minded part of the population that the Robber Barons, then and now, really have your own happiness in mind when they oppose health-care at home or promote a war overseas.

        Did it not occur to you that, because the powerful elite are so few in number, that it is impossible for them to win an election by telling the truth? Instead, they manipulate a much larger and more gullible subset of the population.
        That is why they fought against the Emancipation of cheap labor back then... and today continue their opposition to any attempt to redraw the economic map in a way that would see a more equitable distribution of the American Pie. Only now they are using the GOP as their proxy. Same people working for the same corporate interests, however.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by spxmet4530 (October 23, 2009 5:13 am ET)
        1  
        If you watch Glenn Beck, then why are you on the Media Matters for America website? MMfA daily critisizes and debunks pathetic Beck.

        Oh yeah, I forgot, you're a Democrat. You think you're the alternative to the Republicans (in our "two party system"), when you're really almost a mirror. I bet you vote straight-ticket, Giggles.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by noel619 (October 23, 2009 9:05 am ET)
        1  
        here is were I think we got lost. in the sixties the term Liberal was used to define those that were for the civil rights bill. conseratives were the ones that wanted to keep jim crow laws. the people that were white and wanted change were refered to as liberals. I do beleive there is a difference between democrats and liberals
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Jonice (October 22, 2009 12:01 am ET)
         
      THANK YOU PATRIOTS!
      For standing up for values, decency, and truth. We are behind you and will work to follow your lead. Take care. God Bless!
      Jonice
      Report Abuse
    • Author by skiploader1111 (October 22, 2009 5:55 am ET)
      3  
      I think that the GOP should just change their name to the Fox News Misinformation and Deluded Fantasy Party.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by johnrod10 (October 22, 2009 6:13 am ET)
      1  
      Carl Rove said people are going to get their legs cut off!!! That is SCARY!! I hope that doesnt really happen...The price of wheelchairs would "necessarily skyrocket".
      Report Abuse
      • Author by blindman (October 22, 2009 9:51 am ET)
        1 5
        You people need to get a life.Their is one news channel with a right leaning slant.The other ten or so,lean left.Fox for some reason, is by far the most watched cable channel.Think about this statement.Is it correct or not.The American people are not stupid.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Conchobhar (October 22, 2009 12:39 pm ET)
          2  
          You need to get a guide dog. There are three people with regular gigs in broadcast/cable media who lean left. They can be found back-to-back-to-back evenings on MSNBC. That's balanced by three right-leaning hours of Morning Joe. There are no left-leaning channels.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Lizinbklyn (October 22, 2009 11:14 am ET)
      2  
      So if Becky 'falls off the wagon' and overdoses on drugs, he wants the White House to take responsibility for his drug use ? ?

      Is this what this fool is saying, if he is a sneakey drug addict, as he was for many years in his life, and dies from drugs, the democrats killed him . .

      I'll quote K.O.: YOU'RE NUTZ!!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jcalton (October 22, 2009 12:43 pm ET)
      3  
      Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich are perhaps some of America's biggest liars (as politicians and pundits). Michael Savage may be its most paranoid media figure. Glenn Beck is quickly turning into both.
      These are some pretty (in)credible news sources.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jcalton (October 22, 2009 12:43 pm ET)
         
      Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich are perhaps some of America's biggest liars (as politicians and pundits). Michael Savage may be its most paranoid media figure. Glenn Beck is quickly turning into both.
      These are some pretty (in)credible news sources.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Travieso (October 22, 2009 12:47 pm ET)
      1 4
      Nobody is forced to watch the Fox network. If their news and programs were not compelling, and of immediate interest to Americans, their ratings would plummet. Everyone can Vote with Their Remote: if you don't like it, change the channel. End of story.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by libertycop (October 22, 2009 9:03 pm ET)
          4
        Come on Travieso, really? Are you new?
        Liberals aren't happy unless they have something to attack because it takes the focus off of what they actually stand for. Don't you get it? You're not smart enough to decide what to watch. Keeping an eye on and making exaggerated, hateful, running comments on FNC is their idea of public service and helping the poor dumb people. It makes them feel better about themselves. Leave them alone.

        Beck is hilarious and I love the vitriol he stirs here. Seriously don't make them use common sense, I'll have nothing to take pleasure in.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (October 23, 2009 4:18 pm ET)
        2  
        Psst. No one in the White House or at MMFA is suggesting that Fox News should be taken off the air. Nice strawman, though.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by watkinsjr966 (October 22, 2009 12:57 pm ET)
      3  
      These quotes from Glenn Beck sound like the ramblings of someone with very serious psychiatric problems. If he actually believes all of this stuff he's saying, he's delusional & badly in need of help from a mental health professional!!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by libertycop (October 22, 2009 9:10 pm ET)
          3
        OMG! You're right. Why don't you have him committed?

        I mean you're a physician board certified in psychiatry, psychologist or at least a mental health professional, right?

        This is entertainment and opinion kids not hard news. Think Olbermann... (insert giant eye roll)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mycos2679 (October 23, 2009 4:49 am ET)
          3  
          Social psychologists have long been focused primarily on conservatives as being the subset of society from which it is most likely to produce people who will use violence for political gain. Given the mountains of evidence that the media could be reporting on concerning the conservative right (RWAs) - but choose not to - makes the suggestion that the MSM has a left-wing bias laughable.

          For instance, research has reveals that "conservatism has pathological dimensions manifested in violence and distorted psycho-sexual development" (Boshier,p. 159). This is supported by a study conducted by Walker, Rowe, and Quincey (1993) in which there was a direct correlation between authoritarianism and sexually aggressive behavior. An investigation done by Muehlenhard (1988) revealed that rape justification and aggression toward subordinate individuals was much higher in traditional (conservative personality) than non-traditional personalities."

          Or here's a more blunt assessment by another psychologist whose interest in the conservative personality was sparked by the odd excuses used by so many, seemingly normal Germans at their trials after the war (WW2). What they seemed to have in common was a conservative/authoritarian attitude before the war started.

          "Conservatism is not the doctrine of the intellectual elite or of the more intelligent segments of the population, but the reverse. By every measure available to us, conservative beliefs are found most frequently among the uninformed, the poorly educated, and the less intelligent"(McClosky, H. Conservatism and Personality. American Political Science Review, 52, 27-45.)
          Report Abuse
    • Author by daniel.h.rotter (October 23, 2009 12:58 am ET)
      1  
      "...exaggerated, hateful, running comments on FNC..."

      Couldn't have characterized the kind of comments that you routinely find on FNC better myself, libertycop.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by themidnightreview.com (October 23, 2009 9:53 am ET)
      1  
      Otherwise, they will drag us into their brainiac policies through an emergency.

      I fear an event. I fear a Reichstag moment, a -- God forbid -- another 9-11, something that will turn this machine on, and power will be seized and voices will be silenced.
      Isn't that what happened during the Bush administration, the use of an emergency to pass conservative policies? Look where that got us. I guess Glenn Beck prefers the world the previous administration was building, with warrantless wiretaps and domestic spying, people detained indefinitely, two wars (with probably more to come if another Republican was elected). And why does he fear another 9-11? I thought he love 9-11 because of how it made people act on 9-12. You would think he would love another catastrophe to exploit.
      ------------------------------
      The Midnight Review
      Mum Is The Word
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Samurai Cowboy (October 23, 2009 3:52 pm ET)
         
      n February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/ Fox News Channel is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Nation Committee, which in turn is owned by Rush Limbaugh.
      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.