Not as humorous as Cracked but I recall this bit from David Frum’s column on how the GOP shot itself in the foot during the health care debate with their failure to seek compromise and gain some concessions in exchange for support:
(Bolding mine)
The threads over the years in Great Debates have made me change my mind on the death penalty. While I still don’t think executing people for certain crimes is immoral I do believe that there are enough problems with the death penalty that I have no problem getting rid of it. People can change their minds…maybe it’s rare but it happens.
When I read the thread title (well, after I stopped laughing, particular at the juxtaposition of Michael Savage and “trusted”), I originally thought of the big-time TV talk hosts like Oprah and Larry King.
These are people who happily flog health/medical “controversies” even though they know (or should know) that the controversies do not exist in rational minds, and they are promoting dangerous beliefs and quackery.
Appealing to people’s hatreds and fears while embracing fallacious thinking and prejudices against “elites” is great for business. Rational debate - forget it.
A talk show host could be as big as Limbaugh if he/she found a way to harness populist ignorance and anger on behalf of far-left ideology.
Have faith, it can be done.
God allows men to ruin themselves, does He not? So I hear, anyway.
Only if he believes what he says.
Yes, everyone relies on high-level heuristics for subjects they do not understand, but it remains to be seen that everyone’s cognitive shortcuts for extracting “truth” from data are equally trustworthy.
My intention is not to get a pass on having to check my facts when criticizing commentators but simply to say that the profit a commentator expects to realize from his or her opinions will significantly distort the heuristic processes employed in forming those opinions.
I have listened to talk-shows for years and have checked the facts numerous times. Finding many inconsistencies between what the talkers say and what the facts demonstrate has led me to a draw between one of the following conclusions:
- The quest for profit has corrupted the ability of some commentators to be fair toward competing ideas.
OR - The quest for profit has led some commentators to abandon their attempts at fairness.
I haven’t decided between the two yet; maybe I never will. One thing is for sure, many people are willing to give talk-show hosts a chance.
Just today I tuned-in Beck and got an earful about the crumbling public school system. He made the point that we should redistribute the wealth from “rich” school districts that build extravagant schools and use it to shore up the failing schools. I could have at that point dismissed his argument by falling back on either one of my above premises, but I just kept listening because I was having fun and because he was making sense. I don’t dismiss what he says because I’ve decided that he is on the "other team.” In this case, I haven’t made up my mind either way with regard to the issue he was addressing, as I have no good knowledge about public schools, so I try to keep myself out of the arena altogether. Even so, I listen and I will, as I gather knowledge, evaluate this particular argument on the basis of its merits independent of my evaluation of Glenn Beck.
With all these guys on TV and radio, I can’t speak to their sincerity. But I do know that they can’t be trusted as reliable sources of policy analysis. That’s not to say that they never make good arguments; they do sometimes. So here’s the crux of my points: *We must start from a position of heightened skepticism when evaluating the opinions of these commentators. *This does not give us an excuse to dismiss them, as that’s not what skepticism is about. Rather, it raises the bar on the amount of work we must do in either disconfirming and/or confirming the opinions of talkers like Beck and Limbaugh.
Glenn Beck is the only national host I can talk about with any authority. I’ve listened to nearly every show (all 3 hours, or 2 hours sans commercials) of his since late 2002. If he’s managed to be dishonest with his views, I’m fairly certain it’d be easy to tell listening all of these years. I’m very confident he’s very honest in his opinions. He’s a showman, and uses hyperbole and comedy a lot, which tends to confuse people who only look at an edited transcript.
A perfect example is that Cracked article which says:
The link of course just goes to Media Matters for America, which has routinely gone out of its way to take Glenn out of context or simply lie about him. It works with the Center for American Progress which is just an extention of the White House at this point (and has a revolving door with the WH). It’s not surprising that they call Beck nutty.
Here’s a quote I posted from him in another thread currently going on about him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/bu...20clown&st=cse
Of course if his fans do take his scare tactics at face value, he’s not really going to discourage them either. To do so would mean taking a hit to where it really hurts - his pocketbook.
The man’s basically a shock jock who got lucky and found his niche pandering to right wingers. That so many people consider this assclown to be a great thinker doesn’t speak well of our education system.
You may be misunderstanding this quote. He indeed says that all the time. However he’s not saying “don’t believe anything I say”, he’s saying “don’t simply trust what I say – research it, check it,” etc.
He takes the time on the radio to list his sources (which are often found in the newsletter or website) and says “go check it out.”
In fact, his so-called scare tactics lost him ratings when he was warning about the Dow (when it was over 14K), etc. When he started saying he was buying gold, gold was at $600 IIRC. It’s a shame more people didn’t listen to him.
He’s not an “assclown” (really that says more about you than about him, seriously) nor is he a “shock jock”. In fact, if you check his prediction record, he’s nailed a number of things quite well (though he’s far from perfect). He’s connected some obvious points as well as presenting nutjobs in their own words. People criticized him for calling Van Jones a communist – except he kept showing how Van Jones called himself a communist, etc. He tends to see big pictures but can often trip over details. Which is why his “Beck University” isn’t about him presenting facts, etc. – it’s about the experts he’s found doing the presenting.
Seriously, if this is the one quote you’ve got, you’re wildly underinformed. Listen to his show for a week, then feel free to criticize what he says.
Another quote from that same story.
And as for him being a shock jock, well just check out his bio.
No, it’s about him separating his followers from their money.
Here’s another quote that someone else posted in the other thread. It’s from Forbes magazine.
I’m quite aware of his bio. You apparently aren’t.
Excellent polemic sir! Except you could level the same content-free criticism of anything.
Yes, he calls himself a “rodeo clown” – do you know why? You seem to like quoting that article without knowing anything deeper. I guess you’re simply criticizing him without actually listening to his show. Par for the course I guess.
Yep, in America you can both state your opinion and make money doing it. You seem to be implying something sinister about that. Projection, maybe?
Answer to OP’s question: no, and neither can anyone else. Next question?
Glen Beck mocked a man on live radio because his wife had a miscarriage. How is he not a shock jock?
For instance?
Your homework assignment is to research what year that happened and what Beck has said since.
:dubious: You new here? That ain’t how it works. You got a point to make, you bring the cites.
Are you suggesting that Beck has improved since then? Can you demonstrate that he has? Please show your work.
Only if 1999 is new. He made the claim, I’m asking for the context.
Then please enlighten us. What year was it? What has Beck said about it since?
Sorry, you missed my edit on that one. Want to try again?