Beck is responsible for this in the same way that Al Gore is responsible for the Unabomber.
Regards,
Shodan
I would say that pretty much describes any number of alarmists out there on both sides of the aisle. Ariana Huffington immediately comes to mind, with her new book: Third World American.
Ariana Huffington’s audience isn’t government-hating “patriots” who are currently unabashedly stockpiling weapons. She doesn’t talk about “coups,” and “revolutions,” and “the stealing of America” by “Marxists,” and "internal enemies, and “burning in the streets” if “something doesn’t happen.”
Ariana Huffington’s audience doesn’t talk about coming up with second amendment solutions to their perceived grievances.
Ariana Huffington’s audience doesn’t run around in Revolutionary War attire with the implied threat of doing it all again if necessary.
No one in Ariana Huffington’s audience, as far as I know, has ever strapped on some body armour, packed their mom’s pickup truck with ammo and guns, and then headed off to shoot some conservatives-- and when caught said that Ariana Huffington “would never advocate violence…but [s]he’ll give you every ounce of evidence that you could possibly need.”
A liberal author writing about the decline of the middle class as a result of unnecessary military spending is hardly a call to arms. The shit that Beck does on a twice-daily basis *is *…but with enough plausible deniabilty that when one of his listeners/viewers finally does get so fucking freaked out by that Kenyan, socialist, progressive, Nazi, Muslim enemy who’s destroying our Constitution that they start putting bullets into their fellow Americans, Beck can sit back and say “What? Who? Me? I’m just an entertainer.”
He’s not telling his listeners to shoot anyone, but he is filling them with so much fear and anger that you’re bound to get some right-wing American patriots who feel they have no choice but to defend their nation with their God-given guns. And that’s when you’ll hear “What? Who? Me? I’m an entertainer.”
Bullshit. He’s an instigator. He’s the Woody Woodpecker of unhinged right-wingers.
There are plenty of alarmists on both sides, but you could probably find better comparisons on the fringe of the opposition to Bush. I’m not sure Huffington qualifies.
As far as you know… But what if it did happen? Would Huffington be held accountable, by you, for the actions of some liberal loony toon who took her words as an unspoken order to kill? I say no.
I’m not sure why you are focusing on the “fringe”. I picked AH because she’s pretty comparable to Beck in terms of media presence and audience. I don’t think either one constitutes the “fringe”.
She’s preaching the kind of stuff that could easily be picked up by the anti-globalization crowd. A group whose more radical members regularly riot in the streets.
You would have to look at the words she said. If she’s repeatedly talking about fire in the streets, revolution, coup, second amendment solutions, rising up…then yes.
If she sings “Helter Skelter” and someone claims to hear something about race riots, then no.
It really is context and common sense. Beck is basically seeing how close he can get to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater without actually saying the word “Fire.”
Does Beck talk about “fire in the streets, revolution, coup, second amendment solutions, rising up”? I think you’re exagerating and taking things that other people say and attributing that to Beck.
But I don’t watch Beck, so I could be wrong. Can you quote those things having been said by Beck?
I on the other hand am quite certain that he and his fellow right wing propagandists DO want people killed, with Obama at the top of the list. And this sort of thing is their strategy for killing people without dirtying their own hands and going to prison for it. They’ve been doing it for years.
I have to disagree, I do think it’s an apt comparison, though his examples are perhaps not the best. Let us not forget how violent videogames and music were blames for specific attrocities like Columbine. Stuff like Ozzy and Metallica, or the famous “backwards message” in Stairway to Heaven are generally benign; hell, the guy who shot Lennon was supposedly inspired by The Catcher in the Rye. But there certainly is rap, metal, rock, electronic, and plenty of other music in plenty of other genres, not to mention plenty of literature, film, and other types of entertainment that glorify violence, wanton destruction, hatred, and advocate the overthrow of government and other constructs.
This, I mostly agree with. But this begs the question, that is impossible to answer, of whether or not this guy might have done something similar if Glenn Beck didn’t do what he does. Would this guy have resonated with some other message and done a similar act? Hell, he might have resonated with something that any sane person would see as benign, but because his brain doesn’t work right, he gets something completely different out of it. Crazy people do crazy things for crazy reasons.
I’m going to have to disagree here. I would say Glenn Beck is at least a bit irresponsible with how he handles the issues and his influence, but you really can’t rest any of the blame of what a crazy person does. Yes, I wish someone like Glenn Beck would be a bit more responsible, but it’s part of the trade-off that comes with our liberties. The vast majority of people can be “entertained” by Glenn Beck and not attempt mass murder, but there’s no way to prevent the random crazy without also infringing on the freedoms that we hold so dear. So, I can’t assign any blame to him for any specific act done by one of his viewers.
That said, I still think he’s irresponsible in general, not so much that he might incite similar acts of violence, but because he surely is aware that even generally adjusted people live in greater fear because of what he does. In fact, I hold everyone to the same standard. We are all ultimately responsible for our own actions, so it’s wrong to blame someone else, but condoning or enabling poor choices by others still makes you a douchebag, even if you don’t force them to make that choice.
I’m saying someone with more extreme views than Huffington might have made statements more comparable to Beck’s.
Yeah, they’ve been known to throw a garbage can through a store window from time to time. That’s a little like shooting at cops on your way to kill 11 people.
I haven’t read the book, have you? So I don’t know the kind of language she uses in it. But if it’s the same kind of call-to-arms fear-mongering rhetoric that Beck uses, then yes, she is repsonsible when mulitple lone wolves or groups pick up arms as a response.
And I think that’s a key to this: If one isolated person or group acts out, it can probably be written off as a nutter. When more than one person or group takes up arms in response to the words, it’s a pattern and a problem.
And if I owned a star ship, I would conquer the planet too.
Stupidly and inaccurately, yes. The thing is, FPS games are pretend, and Ozzy and Marilyn Manson put on acts. They sing about some fucked up things, but they still don’t tell anyone their lives are in peril. Beck is pretending (in my opinion) but doesn’t say so, and he does tell people they’re in danger. How similar is that?
Lots of people do what Glenn Beck does. Narrowing it down to just Beck obscures the issue, I think.
The problem is that this is a tautology, and it’s a facile analysis. Yes, crazy people do crazy things, and Byron Williams is a crazy racist alcoholic ex-con. There’s no avoiding that. And even if you leave out the crazies, there are lots of gullible people. I think most of Beck’s viewers know he’s full of crap but see him as essentially correct about some issues. People who are dumb or crazy don’t make the distinction between the “real” stuff and the fake stuff.
I agree. That’s what I was saying earlier.
Good old Ozzy, rousing the rabble, getting all the haters stirred up etc. He sure does push the “hate thing” doesn’t he 
So your response is to dismiss the idea of a violent liberal as far too wild to ever actually be true? Believe it or not, some liberals turn to violence, too. Recall the 2008 GOP convention in St. Paul. It happens. And who is responsible? Talking heads on TV? Internet bloggers?
Stupidly and inaccurately, yes, but not all such forms of entertainment is an act. As a point, I’d point out some bands from the Norwegian Black Metal scene, particularly the infamous story of Mayhem involving Dead and Euronymous. And even though people may do that sort of thing with absolute seriousness, they still don’t bare the responsibility of people who follow through or copycat. Whether or not the message is genuine or part of an act is irrelevant, as individuals may well be inspired by the message, regardless of the intention behind it.
With Glenn Beck, I don’t think he believes everything he says, but I don’t think it’s just an act either. The way he strikes me is as someone who sensationalizes his pespectives on issues because it’s the sensationalism that sells and, over time, he’s started to believe more and more of that sensationalism simply because he’s immersed in it constantly. This is exactly the same sort of thing I’ve seen from other individuals who follow along with that sort of sensationalism; they’re attracted to it because they agree with some of it, and over time, without appropriate balance, they drift more and more to that extreme.
But this is the same with any sort of influence I see often when individuals are immersed heavily in any particular type of one-sided message. I’ve seen individuals who see metal primarily as an expression for anger, who inevitably favor the sub-genres of metal that lean that way, become generally angrier and more nihilistic. Just as I’ve seen individuals who heavily favor the darker and depressing sub-genres become more solemn and withdrawn. In many of these cases, when I’ve actually met some of these bands, they’re generally pretty cheerful, down to Earth people… but not always. Regardless, the influence of the message doesn’t seem meaningfully linked to the intention of the message, that individuals will respond roughly the same in any case.
Perhaps poorly stated on my part. In this particular case, Glenn Beck is seen as baring some responsibility, but I’m more interested in any particular entity that is blamed for any sort of attrocious behavior. This seems like a somewhat common behavior, to see attrocious behavior and some correlated influence is inevitably blamed by some portion of the public.
Fair enough. It’s more the idea that, if these people can’t differentiate between real and fake, what do we do? If there is no causal link between these various influences and the behavior of the crazies, then these reactions are just as sensationalist and contributing to the problem. If there is a causal link, how strong does it have to be before we do something, and what should we do? I’m of the opinion that it is an unfortunate consequence of our liberties, and I’m unwilling to do anything about it without some pretty serious evidence about exactly how strong that link is. Others seem to want to do something even with little or no evidence that there’s any link at all.
I dismiss it. I dismiss it as something tha has not even come close to happening, I dismiss it as a strawman, I dismiss it as a fantasy made up to isllustrate absloutely nothin, I dismiss it as being too ridiculous to even consider. I’m calling it bullshit.
Most of the time the police.
Beck absolutely preaches violence ,thinly disguised, to some who are not well. His peeps are the angry easily led tea baggers. He reaches those who feel cheated by the system, not realizing their disenfranchisement is due to the upper class.
The ultimate choice is the person who does the deed. But those who push it are not free of blame.