Looking into Glenn Beck


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

For some time I have contemplated Glenn Beck. This thread is not asking for any opinions. May I state strongly at this point that this thread is not for opinions. If someone wishes to give just opinions please start a thread for that purpose. My question is very simple. Can anyone give me an example where Glenn Beck has misrepresented or provided incorrect information? If you can provide any links or references that would be most helpful but please do not omit responses because you cannot remember or have lost where the truth came from.

I have done some research of a number of matters that concerned me and so far it would appear that our friend Beck does his home work – unlike the more popular Rush Limbaugh.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was listening to a NPR special on Glenn Beck. They called him crazy and they said that he does not really mean what he says. But as to where Glenn is factually wrong, not so much as a single instance was offered. For someone who ussually likes NPR I was disapointed that the only response to Beck that they could muster was an Ad hominem attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some time I have contemplated Glenn Beck. This thread is not asking for any opinions. May I state strongly at this point that this thread is not for opinions. If someone wishes to give just opinions please start a thread for that purpose. My question is very simple. Can anyone give me an example where Glenn Beck has misrepresented or provided incorrect information? If you can provide any links or references that would be most helpful but please do not omit responses because you cannot remember or have lost where the truth came from.

I have done some research of a number of matters that concerned me and so far it would appear that our friend Beck does his home work – unlike the more popular Rush Limbaugh.

The Traveler

My parents gave me his Arguing with Idiots last Christmas and I've been reading it, little by little, over the past few weeks. I remember thinking, at some points, that one or two of the statistics used weren't necessarily showing the whole story, and I distinctly remember that one of his arguments over the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment seemed very strained. I'll have to dig out the book when I have a bit more time, and post again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it is his information that is necessarily bad, but sometimes his conclusions from the data go to the extreme. I agree that he's probably more reliable than Rush (who I stopped listening to over a decade ago for that reason).

I like Glenn Beck, but do not always believe his conclusions, as they are sometimes a stretch. I do like his radio show more than his Fox show, as he's more entertaining on it. I'd like him to bring Stu on television and the two of them do a little fun stuff every night (say a ten minute segment out of his hour).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone give me an example where Glenn Beck has misrepresented or provided incorrect information?

One thing Beck often does, is satire and parody. Saying the exact opposite of what he believes, and relying on his listeners to read his tone and word choice to decipher his true meaning.

I find it hillarious, but someone reading a transcript is likely to be confused to the point of distraction with all the blatantly false stuff he says.

LM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just the facts? Okay, but at least let me state that imho commentators generally have decent research, but can always be accused of distorted the facts, because they are also interpreting them. Opponents tend to conflate the facts and commentary, and then complain of erroneous research...or even lying.

But, you asked...so here's one I found: Cash for Clunkers | FactCheck.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC, thanks for the link. I like how the guy who says it is not true points and says "just because a poorly worded disclaimer doesn't mean that they can access your computer".

OK sure. I have a bridge I would like to sell too.

For the others who state that Beck has "blatantly false stuff". Please provide references as Traveler requested.

Ben Raines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC, thanks for the link. I like how the guy who says it is not true points and says "just because a poorly worded disclaimer doesn't mean that they can access your computer".

OK sure. I have a bridge I would like to sell too.

For the others who state that Beck has "blatantly false stuff". Please provide references as Traveler requested.

Ben Raines

I must say Ben that your paraphrasing of what Hugh D’Andrade said is poorly worded.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was chatting with someone the other day about Glenn Beck. I don't watch him as I think he falls under the "extreme political entertainment" category much like Colbert or Stewart. I didn't have anything specific about him which I found negative so I decided to do a basic fact check based on stuff I personally know about. I read two articles on his blog that I found via Google - note these were the only two I read and I found both of them to have errors:

Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics)

First of this, this one is factually wrong in that there is no "Premier of Canada". How can someone not know the governing structure of another country? As for the tone of the article I find it snarky and condescending.

The facts are this was the Premier (similar as a governor) of one of the poorest provinces of Canada (with only a population of 500k spread across an area about the size of California) who happens to be worth about ~$200m and has a house in Florida. So he decided to have his surgery in Florida and combine it with a quiet vacation instead of going to another province to have it done. (This one really burns me because I personally know his doctor and I myself have heart problems so I know the system from that point of view.)

Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Glenn Beck: Canada's Health Care system failing

For this one Beck states "The guy who designed the Canadian healthcare system says it's in a crisis and he's now advocating private control of much of the system". To me this is factually wrong since the guy behind the Canadian health care system died in 1986. It's also misleading as in Canada each province runs their own system based on federal guidelines. In this article he somehow manages to tie this into a Marxist plot to take down government. To me that's beyond ridiculous.

Again, this was based on reading two articles which is enough for me to not bother looking into him further. Apologists please feel free to flame him but please don't use the angle that since he's a Mormon I should support him. The fact that he's a Mormon makes me cringe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

False?

No. Glenn Beck does not outright lie. That would be slander in most cases. However, if you're looking for misrepresentation, there is misrepresentation galore:

Here is the entire transcript from Glenn Beck's Keynote speech:

Full Transcript of Glenn Beck's Keynote Speech... | Gather

Here's the first paragraph:

The – people are losing a fundamental belief that it’s going to be better to – tomorrow. Let me tell you now: it is still morning in America. It just happens to be kind of a head-pounding-hung-over-vomiting-for-four-hours kind of morning in America. And it’s shaping up to be kind of a nasty day, but it’s still morning in America. Now the question is: what made us, you know, sit there at the john vomiting for four hours? What is it that has taken us onto this path? What are we suffering from? What is it that has caused the problem? And if you say Obama it’s too simple of an answer because it’s not Barack Obama. May I? May I? Let me – may I just for a second? Could I – could I just ask to bring a friend up?

Any lies? None, clearly. He hasn't said anything. He's using fiery rhetoric. Lots of wind, signifying nothing. Entertaining wind, but he hasn't really said anything.

I mean it's sick – it’s sick when a chalkboard gets a standing ovation.

Thank you. You have no idea what it’s like to travel with one of these things, really. A Palm Pilot is the way to go. This is – try to get this in an overhead luggage compartment. It’s impossible.

(writes “Progressivism” on the chalkboard)

(applause)

This is the disease. This is the disease in America. It’s not just spending, it’s not just taxes, it’s not just corruption. It is progressivism. And it is in both parties. It is in the Republicans and the Democrats. I mean it’s – it really is. I mean, I’m so sick of hearing people say, oh, well the Republicans are going to solve it all. Really? It’s just progressive-lite that – lite. That’s like somebody sticking a screwdriver in your eye and saying, stop! Stop! And somebody else pulls it out and then puts a pin in your eye. I don’t want stuff in my eyes! Stop stabbing in the eyes!

More rhetoric. No actual content. I'm not going to be silly and say 'Glenn Beck lied! Nobody's poking him in the eyes with needles!'

No. Instead, he's just not saying anything.

Progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution. And it was designed to eat the Constitution. To progress past the Constitution.

Sombody just sent this to me this week. (holds up book) It’s “Progress and Democracy for Rhode Island.” You can’t read the date here but it’s 1938. And I just want to read a bit of this to you. I looked under Democracy.

(reading) Democracy has always played an important role in the history of Rhode Island. Time and again, the people of the state have repudiated attempts to nullify or curtail it. Well, in 1938 we are again faced with a proposition: shall democratic government continue?

Quote –

(reading) We communists are ready to join with all liberty-loving people in defending democracy. Democracy is the rule of the majority. And it can only operate as well as our Constitution permits it to operate. But our Constitution is now over a hundred years old and fast out-living its usefulness.

No lies here. Instead, he's taken a book which is kept under the 'Titles of Communist Publications' at the Sophia Smith College collection and said that it represents all progressives.

This is a strawman argument. I could just as easily produce Ted Kaczynski's manifesto and use it to 'prove' that modern conservativism wants to kill innocent people. It would be a silly argument, but because ol' Ted was a staunch conservative, it would meet Glenn Beck's requirement for 'proof'. This is not proof. It is a gross misrepresentation.

The next three paragraphs are dedicated to this book, so I won't quote them simply because they're irrelevant. Again, I must say: It's a gross misrepresentation to use a single source and claim that's the whole of the movement. Even a lot of sources wouldn't work well. I could take even a group of people in conservativism - Say, the militant isolationists - And make an argument more compelling than this. If there were a 'liberal' analyst who constantly quoted the extreme cling-ons to the Conservative movement such as the KKK or Timothy McVeigh, would you be arguing that he never lied? Technically, no. Such a man wouldn't be lying. He would be grossly misrepresenting.

The idea, between the two – the argument, in Woodrow Wilson’s day – the argument was, well, you’re a Marxist. You’re a Communist. No, no. No I’m not. I’m a progressive. Well, what’s the difference? Here’s the difference.

If I spell something wrong, you guys are going to kill me.

(laughter)

(writes “Revolution” and “Evolution” on the chalkboard)

Revolution or evolution, that’s the difference. Revolution or evolution. Well, there’s no difference except one requires a gun and the other does it slowly, piece by piece, eating away at it, to the point to where now our people in Congress, they don’t even care. Have they even read – and I know they’re used to not reading things that are two-thousand pages – could they read this? It’s only four!

Yep. All true. Technically, however, Right to Bear Arms amendment is an evolution of the Constitution. It isn't in the original document. So would most staunch conservatives be pushing to abolish all amendments to the Constitution, including Freedom of Religion and the Right to Bear Arms?

It would seem that not all evolution is bad. If so, please stop arguing that evolution is bad. Also: This is more rhetoric. He's hinting the Constitution is being destroyed by these changes but hasn't proved it. Simply assumed it was true.

More rhetoric does not equal untruth. Merely unimportant.

Van Jones – Van Jones is a Communist, a self-described Communist. Well, nobody paid attention to him. He was a pariah, until he said, well I’m really a progressive, I’m for progress. I just want to evolve into a nicer place. Well, we don’t want to involve – evolve into these kinds of places. And that is the choice. And the Republicans right now are giving us many of those same choices – not all of them – but some of them. We have a guy in the Republican Party who says his – his favorite president is Theodore Roosevelt. Well, I thought so too until I read Theodore Roosevelt. By the way, Theodore Roosevelt, the guy who started the Bull Moose Party, which was the progressive party.

More cherry-picking of people who can be reviled. Irrelevant and already proven earlier on that it's misrepresentative of a movement as a whole.

I went through roughly half of the remaining document and it was overwhelmingly just rhetoric - Nothing that actually said anything. If that's the case, and I would argue for anyone to find specifics in his argument that were not cherry-picked to prove his rhetoric, then he's not lying.

He's simply grossly misrepresenting the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For this one Beck states "The guy who designed the Canadian healthcare system says it's in a crisis and he's now advocating private control of much of the system". To me this is factually wrong since the guy behind the Canadian health care system died in 1986.

FWIW, a brief Google search of the quote offered indicates that Beck is citing Claude Castonguay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some time I have contemplated Glenn Beck. This thread is not asking for any opinions. May I state strongly at this point that this thread is not for opinions. If someone wishes to give just opinions please start a thread for that purpose. My question is very simple. Can anyone give me an example where Glenn Beck has misrepresented or provided incorrect information? If you can provide any links or references that would be most helpful but please do not omit responses because you cannot remember or have lost where the truth came from.

I have done some research of a number of matters that concerned me and so far it would appear that our friend Beck does his home work – unlike the more popular Rush Limbaugh.

The Traveler

Actually, how many of us spend the time in listening to Glen at all? I don't...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked Beck much more a few years back before he was on TV. He was funny and still is...I don't really get Funky's point....Beck is expressing the outrage that a whole lot of Americans are and have been feeling.

Our government....our elected representatives rarely represent the will of the people. They continue to ignore economic warning signs...like the mess in Europe and follow the same or similar paths. Obama didn't cause the economic mess...BUT, his efforts to correct the problem have been thinly veiled moves to broaden the scope of government....more ineffectual government.

Beck is hacking off a lot of people...mostly on the left and probably some so called conservatives in the Republican party...good for him. It really is way past the time that we demand that our representatives be held MORE accountable than we hold private corporations. This isn't a football game and we should all stop cheering for a favorite team...because all the players are stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What facts has he grossly misrepresented? Please be specific.

The Traveler

It almost sounds like FT is saying that he is JUST using incendiary rhetoric to insight mindless Obama haters to more anger. Of course no one on the left does that either...right? No...they do and both sides have some mindless followers, the difference is that the media establishment is dominated by the left and intellectual honesty fled the building long ago....oh, and there political commentators either suck or are revered as funny, edgy and enlightened....aka John Stewart and.....Bill Mahr

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, this was based on reading two articles which is enough for me to not bother looking into him further. Apologists please feel free to flame him but please don't use the angle that since he's a Mormon I should support him. The fact that he's a Mormon makes m

If you apply that kind of intensive and extensive research to most anyone in the public spotlight....you could easily come to the same conclusion,...well...unless you are in agreement with what they are saying whether fact or just some easily agreeable fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It almost sounds like FT is saying that he is JUST using incendiary rhetoric to insight mindless Obama haters to more anger. Of course no one on the left does that either...right? No...they do and both sides have some mindless followers, the difference is that the media establishment is dominated by the left and intellectual honesty fled the building long ago....oh, and there political commentators either suck or are revered as funny, edgy and enlightened....aka John Stewart and.....Bill Mahr

I was saying that he only uses incendiary rhetoric and cherry-picked items. You're right, of course - The left does do such things. Bill Maher is notorious for it and if the website here was talking about how wonderful Mr. 'Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death' was, I'd be rolling my eyes as well.

Jon Stewart is different. I wouldn't get my news from him, but he is hilarious. And you can't compare Jon - Who is possibly the nicest man on television - to Bill. Jon is a comedian first and foremost who says 'I would be very sad if I thought that people watch my show - Which comes on after 'Puppets who make crank calls' in the evening lineup - watched it to get the news.'

Jon is the court jester. He makes fun of things he thinks are absurd. He spotlights things that are internally inconsistent and he is very funny and good at his job.

Edited by FunkyTown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What facts has he grossly misrepresented? Please be specific.

The Traveler

I was, Traveler.

Please go back and re-read my post. I will requote the salient part of his talk:

Progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution. And it was designed to eat the Constitution. To progress past the Constitution.

He's saying Progressivism is designed to eat the Constitution.

He then grossly misrepresented Progressives as either being dupes of some obscure Communist who happened to be a Progressive or vile moustache twirling Constitution destroyers.

Is that specific enough? If you need me to be more specific, Traveler, I can use Glenn Beck's exact same style of argument to prove that all Conservatives want to blow up government buildings (Like staunch conservative Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski, who also wrote a manifesto about what Conservativism should be about).

Would you accept someone saying that the Unabomber and the Oklahoma City Bomber both of whom were staunch conservatives were indicative of conservativism as a whole? If you accept Glenn Beck's arguments, which use very specific people who claimed the Progressive label, why would you not accept my arguments which claim all Conservatives are psychotic baby-killers? The rule of proof I've followed fits Glenn Beck's idea.

Incidentally, in case I wasn't clear, I'm not saying that Conservatives are monsters. I'm saying that Glenn Beck grossly misrepresents Progressivism with his absurd arguments. And his absurd arguments are painfully stupid. Just as painfully stupid as an argument that all Conservatives are unwittingly following in the Unabomber's footsteps.

Is that specific enough, or do you need further clarification Traveler?

Edited by FunkyTown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was, Traveler.

Please go back and re-read my post. I will requote the salient part of his talk:

He's saying Progressivism is designed to eat the Constitution.

He then grossly misrepresented Progressives as either being dupes of some obscure Communist who happened to be a Progressive or vile moustache twirling Constitution destroyers.

Is that specific enough? If you need me to be more specific, Traveler, I can use Glenn Beck's exact same style of argument to prove that all Conservatives want to blow up government buildings (Like staunch conservative Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski, who also wrote a manifesto about what Conservativism should be about).

Would you accept someone saying that the Unabomber and the Oklahoma City Bomber both of whom were staunch conservatives were indicative of conservativism as a whole? If you accept Glenn Beck's arguments, which use very specific people who claimed the Progressive label, why would you not accept my arguments which claim all Conservatives are psychotic baby-killers? The rule of proof I've followed fits Glenn Beck's idea.

Incidentally, in case I wasn't clear, I'm not saying that Conservatives are monsters. I'm saying that Glenn Beck grossly misrepresents Progressivism with his absurd arguments. And his absurd arguments are painfully stupid. Just as painfully stupid as an argument that all Conservatives are unwittingly following in the Unabomber's footsteps.

Is that specific enough, or do you need further clarification Traveler?

1. I was not aware that the Unabomber neither was active in politics or ever held any elected office or party office nor was he ever granted public funds outside of general social funds intended for the poor. My understanding of the Unabomber is that he was anti-social and not affiliated as a member of any political movement.

2. I believe Glen Beck’s comments are directed towards individuals that hold public office or use public funds to accomplish specific tasks.

3. Then you are neither saying that the Progressive movement, currently active within both political parties has no intention now nor have they ever had intention to define law and institute public policy in the manner Beck has represented. For example to increase federalism both with control of funds (increasing taxes and use of federal monies to enact policies beyond the reach of the Constitution) and instituting policy that was denied to the federal government by law of the constitution.

I am watching the federal government involvement in the banking industry and in my life time I have seen home loans go from an industry that made money based on interest rates charged to a much more powerful and profitable industry that makes the majority of their profits from fees and fines – so much so that home loans turn over (refinance) on the average of every 5 years.

I have watched the CDC change health care to become dependent on expensive drugs despite the fact that the most common health problems in this country are caused from poor diets and lack of exercise.

I have watched government land become exclusive and taken away from or restricted to the public

I have wondered if there is a political movement common to these and other efforts – and it does look like it to me. Are you saying it is not the progressives – that it is the people that have demanded these things?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's saying Progressivism is designed to eat the Constitution.

He then grossly misrepresented Progressives as either being dupes of some obscure Communist who happened to be a Progressive or vile moustache twirling Constitution destroyers.

But he's correct. The concept behind Progressive is to step-by-step give government more control over the nation's activities. While communists want to wipe out the Constitution in one swipe, Progressives just want to nibble at the corners. However, over a period of decades, that nibbling makes a large dent in the whole thing.

No one thought Teddy Roosevelt's nibbling was harming the Constitution. However, Teddy Kennedy's nibbling on an already tattered document shows just how much we've done over a century.

So, I don't think Beck was wrong on this issue. Our nation does not resemble what it was like 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago when it comes to government regulation. A century ago, the banks would have been allowed to fail. Today, we not only bail them out, but we allow them to continue sticking it to the average American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funky-

While I appreciate the time you took to give what I believe one of his best speeches a proper analysis, I think you're demanding that Beck reinterperet the facts to your liking. While I don't like his use of hyperbole or incendiary rhetoric either (which is why I much rather prefer his TV show- it's calming down very much and focusing much more on the facts), and he's not the greatest thinker of the libertarian movement, I don't think he's "grossly misreprenting" the facts at all. What I think he's done is A LOT of personal homework, drawn his own conclusions, and boiled everything down to easy-to-digest talking points.

As for "cherry-picking" people and ideas- you can't really offer a comprehensive critique of the entire Progressive and Communist movements in one one-hour speech, especially with absolutely zero college experience. The reason I like Beck is that I think he's picked up the salient, core values of Progressivism as a general movement and exposed them to be the anti-American philosophies they really are. His use of key political figures is to use examples that everyone knows, methinks.

By the way, anyone who will not watch Beck because they think he's too caustic, I encourage you to watch a few recent episodes- he's calmed down considerably and focuses more on comparing the history of 20th-century America to current events (meaning that there's a whole lot less mudslinging and hyperbolic bashing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His use of key political figures is to use examples that everyone knows, methinks.

And, in a nutshell, you have shown why I think Glenn Beck is a hack.

Whoever wrote that pamphlet that made up a significant portion of his keynote speech is hardly a 'Key political figure'. He is an obscure political figure that isn't indicative of the movement as a whole.

However: I'd like to ask you and Rameumptom a question since you seem to believe his tactics are fine. I stated it in my original post, but I'll reiterate it. Please address it.

If a left-leaning journalist spoke about the Conservative agenda of legalized violence and used Ted Kaczynski's manifesto(He was the Unabomber, by the way) as a means of proof that Conservatives want that, would you accept what he said and move away from conservativism?

If not, why not?

He fits the following:

1) Staunchly conservative.

2) Published.

3) Far more famous than even the creator of the pamphlet that his keynote address was on.

4) Passionate about his ideals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He fits the following:

1) Staunchly conservative.

2) Published.

3) Far more famous than even the creator of the pamphlet that his keynote address was on.

4) Passionate about his ideals.

All he needs now is a time slot at Fox and he will be in business.

I assume he already has that wild-eyed look down pat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share