PDA

View Full Version : Glenn beck – restoring honor?




Old Ducker
08-31-2010, 02:47 PM
Glenn and me
Commentary: A Talking Heads moment with the controversial talk show host
By David Weidner, MarketWatch

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — Glenn Beck welcomed me with a big hello and a goofy grin. I liked him immediately.

It was April Fool’s Day 2008, more than two years before his day in the Washington sun this past weekend. Bear Stearns Cos. had just been acquired by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. /quotes/comstock/13*!jpm/quotes/nls/jpm (JPM 36.07, +0.22, +0.61%) . The financial industry was spinning, but much of the world was still living in the bubble economy. Housing prices were holding. Oil prices were still north of $100 a barrel.

Earlier that day, I had been invited on his show. It was still on CNN. Beck moved to Fox News later that year. The topic was the price of oil. A producer called for a pre-interview. I had done a lot of reporting and writing on the subject. My take was that Wall Street speculation was largely to blame, not the oil companies. Read 2008 column on oil speculation.

Beck’s producer was smart and asked good questions. I explained to her how Wall Street traders pushed up energy prices in Europe where there were fewer market limits and how Goldman Sachs Group Inc. /quotes/comstock/13*!gs/quotes/nls/gs (GS 137.54, +0.88, +0.64%) analysts were particularly influential in driving up prices by setting eye-popping price targets. It was a subject that had been under-covered by the media, in my opinion.

She explained to me that Beck wanted to know if oil companies were responsible. I said I didn’t think so, and we made arrangements for my visit to the studio.

Made bigger by TV
At the time, I was familiar with Beck, but not a regular viewer. His billboards were ubiquitous on the sides of city buses. His interviews didn’t make much of an impression on me, or at least I didn’t remember anything if I saw one.

His monologues were the thing that really awed me. I didn’t always agree with him — rarely, actually — but as someone who writes and talks commentary, I admired his skills. He’s a fantastic and persuasive speaker in the way he uses cadence, pauses and nuanced words.

A radio guy at heart, Beck’s transition to TV made him even more powerful. He isn’t a handsome guy. He looks like your local insurance agent. But the folksy persona matches the message.

When I arrived at the studio, I was ushered into the makeup room and that’s where I first met Beck. In person, he’s not much different than what you get on the tube. He is, perhaps, a little more rumpled. He was wearing Converse sneakers. I’ve bumped into him a few times here in the News Corp. building. I’ve never seen him in a suit.
On the show
After giving me his big hello, Beck rushed off to somewhere, probably his stage. I was sent to a dark small booth with a camera pointed at a tall chair. These “remote” studios aren’t that unusual. They use them to save space on the main stage, or just create the illusion that someone is beaming in. But for Beck they served a purpose I would soon discover.

There was a monitor so I could watch the show. Beck was doing his monologue. Then, he interviewed someone on a different subject. Finally, he turned to the subject of oil prices.

My memory of what followed may not be perfect. I contacted CNN to get a clip of the show and they didn’t respond. It’s not on YouTube, which is surprising, since it seems everything is. But my conversation with Beck left a lasting impression.

Beck introduced me. A light on the camera turned red. I smiled. The light went off. Beck didn’t begin with a question, but more of a statement. He said he knew that I thought speculation was to blame. He said he knew I thought Wall Street had a role. But wasn’t, Beck said, the real problem Congress?

April Fool’s Day, indeed. Beck bum-rushed me by dismissing the answers I had given to his producer earlier. He turned a discussion of the causes of high oil prices into a political debate, one I wasn’t really interested in or prepared to talk about.

Disoriented, I probably didn’t start my reply well, but when I got my wits about me, I argued that his thesis was wrong. I said it wasn’t a political issue but a trading issue. My answer probably started to sound hostile.

And here’s where Beck had what we all do from time to time, a Talking Heads moment. He stopped making sense.

Beck followed up with a question — again it was more of a statement — about how government policy was responsible for higher oil prices. It was a theme he would return to all summer as oil prices inched higher.

Again, I said I didn’t see it that way and before I could elaborate, Beck began talking over me, that little red light went off and he turned to another guest in Washington who seemed to agree with him before my audio was turned off.

It was over. Gone in 30 seconds, if that.

‘Restoring honor’
I was angry and disappointed. On one level, I understood. This was his show. It was his game. It was entertainment, not a real debate. It happens. Whether CNN, CNBC, MSNBC or Fox, shows are hosted in a way in which guests are brought on to simply break up the monotony.

We’re fodder for the stars. Beck wanted a guest who played into his narrative that we shouldn’t blame the oil companies for high prices; we should blame the government.

But on another level I was profoundly disturbed that Beck had used a news device — interviews — to advance an agenda.

The price of gas is pivotal to our economy. What influences its price is complicated. Yes, there’s plenty of room for debate even over whether speculators are fueling the price. But the way Beck dealt with the subject was dishonest. Ours was a mock interview, perhaps designed to be contentious and keep the viewers watching.

What it wasn’t, was an intelligent discussion. It wasn’t even a discussion. Perhaps I was naive, but I still can’t help but feel I was duped and set up. Small consolation: I watched a few of his shows and found I wasn’t the only one.

And that’s why when I saw my old friend Glenn Beck leading “restoring honor” marches on Washington as he did Saturday, I wondered what kind of “honor” he’s talking about. Honoring guests? Honoring ideas? Honoring points of view?

Who knows? But knowing how Beck doesn’t like things complicated, I’ll make an observation and keep it simple.

Restoring honor? You have to have some to begin with.

David Weidner covers Wall Street for MarketWatch.


http://theburningplatform.com/blog/2010/08/31/glenn-beck-restoring-honor/

BlackSand
08-31-2010, 03:25 PM
Thats pretty disappointing to hear. Im a little bit surprised, but not that surprised. Its one of the reasons I stopped watching him while I was stil in the transistion from going Republican to LIbertararain. It didnt feel like an educated setting. It felt like demagoguery. And so I started watching Stossel because I felt like I was actually learning something. He wasnt about politics, he was about ideas. But then I realized he was using the same tricks! Giving the people he agreed with more air time, talking over the people he disagreed with. I was a little disappointed the first time I noticed. I feel like the Judge has been doing pretty good though. Granted I havent watched a lot of his show. But when I have, he asks straight forward questions, and doesnt beat around the bush.

Sola_Fide
08-31-2010, 03:37 PM
I'm waiting for some of the big networks to have an extended debate format...not this talk over you, 30 second soundbyte, propaganda hour.

SteveR
08-31-2010, 03:37 PM
Glenn Beck was trying to inspire Americans with religion. I think he likes to listen to himself talk, like most politicians. There is an old expression: Words lead to ideas. So what. Ideas get drowned out by corporate special interests groups who do not care about people, their ideas, and their words. All they care about is amassing wealth, and putting money in their pockets. And enough is never enough. Until we change the influence of corporate special interest groups in this country, words and ideas that would help the majority of the people will not come to fruition.

BlackSand
08-31-2010, 03:46 PM
Does anyone think its possible that Beck is trying to steer the republican party? First he got western conservatives under his belt. And now hes heading in a more religious direction, trying to get the south under his belt. Two very distinct brands of conservatism. Hes trying to steer the south towards a more libertarian brand of capitalism, and trying to steer the west towards a more god centered...culture. Or whatever it is hes trying to do.

JustinTime
08-31-2010, 04:02 PM
Does anyone think its possible that Beck is trying to steer the republican party? First he got western conservatives under his belt. And now hes heading in a more religious direction, trying to get the south under his belt. Two very distinct brands of conservatism. Hes trying to steer the south towards a more libertarian brand of capitalism, and trying to steer the west towards a more god centered...culture. Or whatever it is hes trying to do.

Beck's always come across as a religious type to me.

BlackSand
08-31-2010, 04:17 PM
But he wasnt always this forward with it. This year is when he started REALLY going religious.

silentshout
08-31-2010, 05:17 PM
Does anyone think its possible that Beck is trying to steer the republican party? First he got western conservatives under his belt. And now hes heading in a more religious direction, trying to get the south under his belt. Two very distinct brands of conservatism. Hes trying to steer the south towards a more libertarian brand of capitalism, and trying to steer the west towards a more god centered...culture. Or whatever it is hes trying to do.

whatever it is, I don't like it.

Koz
08-31-2010, 07:31 PM
Does anyone think its possible that Beck is trying to steer the republican party? First he got western conservatives under his belt. And now hes heading in a more religious direction, trying to get the south under his belt. Two very distinct brands of conservatism. Hes trying to steer the south towards a more libertarian brand of capitalism, and trying to steer the west towards a more god centered...culture. Or whatever it is hes trying to do.

I haven't thought about it, but this makes a lot of sense.

As far as religion, I don't think Beck has really hidden the fact that he is very religious. I heard him tell a story about how he became religious about a year and a half ago.

angelatc
08-31-2010, 08:09 PM
I am really afraid that the rally was intended to bring back power to the religious right.

BlackSand
09-01-2010, 09:20 AM
I am really afraid that the rally was intended to bring back power to the religious right.

I know he advocates legalizing drugs. And he has said he is more Ron Paul than Sarah Palin, and that he just doesnt agree with the way Paul campaigns or something. I dont really know what he meant. I think he advocates a slow move towards libertarian principles rather than all at once.

But what if that is his goal, and he succeeds? How socially conservative is he really? Would the new right be more Ron Paul or more Chuck Baldwin?

pcosmar
09-01-2010, 09:33 AM
Would the new right be more Ron Paul or more Chuck Baldwin?

:confused:
What is the difference?

I have read writings and heard both speak. Seems they are on the same page.
Ron endorsed Chuck for President.

New right??

BlackSand
09-01-2010, 09:51 AM
It seems like Beck is merging western conservatism (Golwater-ish) with south conservatism (religious).

Chuck is much more religious than RP. His definition of separation of church and state is pretty loose.

pcosmar
09-01-2010, 09:56 AM
It seems like Beck is merging western conservatism (Golwater-ish) with south conservatism (religious).

Chuck is much more religious than RP. His definition of separation of church and state is pretty loose.

No.
Chuck is a Pastor. Ron is a Doctor. Both are men of faith.
Beck is a professional Propagandist. Trained and well paid.


Restoring honor? You have to have some to begin with.

jmdrake
09-01-2010, 10:35 AM
It seems like Beck is merging western conservatism (Golwater-ish) with south conservatism (religious).

Chuck is much more religious than RP. His definition of separation of church and state is pretty loose.

It's no looser than Dr. Paul's definition.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

I'm starting to believe that a lot of people who support Dr. Paul don't really know all of his positions.

BlackSand
09-01-2010, 10:39 AM
I understand that Chuck is against gay marriage where as Paul is for. At least on a national level. I dont know RP's local politics as well. Ive heard hes socially conservative at a state level.

jmdrake
09-01-2010, 10:51 AM
I understand that Chuck is against gay marriage where as Paul is for. At least on a national level. I dont know RP's local politics as well. Ive heard hes socially conservative at a state level.

No. Ron Paul is not for gay marriage. He supported DOMA and said he'd pass something similar if he was in the state legislature. In other words he would leave marriage entirely up to the voters and keep it out of the hands of federal or state judges.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

He is against the federal marriage amendment, but I haven't seen anywhere that Chuck Baldwin supports that either. I believe both would leave that decision up to the states.

Further Ron Paul spoke out against the ruling that overturned state laws sodomy (oral or anal sex). He said he was personally against such laws, but that it was the domain of the states to decide.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

People take ONE statement where Ron Paul said in response to a question about gay marriage that he was "in favor of the right to contract" to mean "I support gay marriage". Nothing could be further from the truth. Gay people can already enter into contracts in every state in the union! Gay people can through contract set up wills, durable power of attorneys, separation agreements etc. Marriage just gives you a set of defaults as well as the ability to force your private contract against 3rd parties for the sake of "benefits".

If Ron Paul supports "gay marriage" then there isn't a mainstream politician in the country who is opposed to it.

jmdrake
09-01-2010, 10:53 AM
Here's Chuck Baldwin on the "federal marriage amendment". He's against it just like Ron Paul.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=62916
WND: What's your perspective of the federal Marriage Amendment?

Baldwin: I know that a lot of my pro-family friends that don't agree with me on this. They don't see the danger of this. If a federal Marriage Amendment was enacted all that would do would [be to] authorize the Supreme Court to meddle with it, and by the time the Supreme Court would be done with it, it could be something far more monstrous than what the pro-life and pro-family people would want. I don't that's a good idea. I don't think that's a necessary approach. First of all I support the Defense of Marriage Act that was already was passed by Congress and signed by then-President Clinton. So it's already the federal law that they recognize marriage is between a man and a woman. That's already been done and I support that. I also believe that the states have the right and I would defend the rights of the state to protect that definition of a man and woman for legal marriage. In other words, they would not be forced to accept another state's definition, say Massachusetts or another liberal state that would try to redefine marriage.

BlackSand
09-01-2010, 10:57 AM
I stand corrected. It just always SEEMED to me that Ron was more secular when it came to government. And I always envision he Constitution party as kind of overly religious. Wanting to force Christian values on everyone.

silentshout
09-01-2010, 10:59 AM
It's no looser than Dr. Paul's definition.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

I'm starting to believe that a lot of people who support Dr. Paul don't really know all of his positions.

Well, you can support someone without agreeing with them in lockstep. Paul brings so much more to the table, and he doesn't make belief in God some kind of requirement of sorts to be a "true American" or anything like that. If he does, well maybe i am in the wrong place.

pcosmar
09-01-2010, 11:04 AM
I stand corrected. It just always SEEMED to me that Ron was more secular when it came to government. And I always envision he Constitution party as kind of overly religious. Wanting to force Christian values on everyone.

Then you along with many others have bought into the Negative Propaganda without investigating for yourself.

That happens a lot.

jmdrake
09-01-2010, 11:12 AM
Well, you can support someone without agreeing with them in lockstep. Paul brings so much more to the table, and he doesn't make belief in God some kind of requirement of sorts to be a "true American" or anything like that. If he does, well maybe i am in the wrong place.

Neither does Chuck Baldwin. Neither does Glenn Beck. (I hate that I'm defending Beck, but he's been ok lately). And you're right. Ron Paul does bring a lot to the table. And that attracts a wide variety of people. The problem comes in when some people only pay attention to the parts they agree with Ron on, then attack Ron supporters (like Pastor Baldwin) for holding positions Ron himself holds. It seems like ever couple of months or so somebody "discovers" that there are "conservative Christians" in the movement and freaks out, forgetting that most of those conservative Christians are echoing RP positions. (Some go a bit overboard). I'm glad you give RP the benefit of the doubt. Give it to other people as well.

BlackSand
09-01-2010, 11:13 AM
Your such a nice guy...

But yes. I can admit I was wrong. But Chuck does talk about God a lot more than RP does. And the third principle of the constitution party is straight marriage where as the libertarian party is very vocal about gay marriage. I assumed Ron would agree with the platform of his own party.