While I like Guardian, their reflexive Leftism in their coverage - albeit usually self critical and centrist (although too often wooley minded feelgoodism Left) - makes me wonder about this arty. While I am conservative myself and dislike their particular political positions, I find the US right - populist right at least - to be borderline lunatic, but there are always major debates here, often intelligent on that side.
So, the OP question is:
(i) Fair, Unfair re specific focus?
(ii) Generalisable beyond these outlets
(iii) Reactions re impact of this kind of lunacy (as most of what is quoted there I find quite lunatic).
While no one would consider me a left winger (well, with the exception of my dad and some of his buddies), and while I"m militantly opposed to agreeing with Gonzo on even the color of the sky or where the sun will come up, I have to say that, just skimming that Guardian article, Glenn is off his gourde. That is one of the most convoluted and nutty bits of insanity I’ve seen in a long time…and recently I’ve seen several threads on this board on offshoring, outsourcing, tariffs and comparisons of the US to Egypt and serious questions if we are a fascist state and whether it would be best if the left wing just kicks off the revolution now or waits until next week to get the party started. All of that pales besides Glenn’s flipped out theories. This is more along the 9/11 was done by the US government in conjunction with Jews, Anabaptist and mutant space crickets disguised as intelligent platypus marsupial types…
Mmm yes, Beck I think I get (although unable to sit through any of the Youtubes of him, I’m flummoxed this fellow is on a major channel, really), but the others?
And yes, the nutty threads here about US a fascist country or asking in apparent seriousness for rioting over … I don’t know what in some farcical comparison with Egypt are in this league in my view. But that’s internet nutters on this board, not what I presume here are high profile commentators. I’m trying to get a sense of this, lacking context (e.g. if these are like BNP nutters with that size audience, that’s one thing, but if they’re with serious audiences, well…)
And it would be so easy to say that this is vindication for George Bush’s courageous, single-handed decision to invade Iraq and spread democracy to the Middle East.
It would be a mistake to confuse Beck and his like -and their audiences- with the American conservative “base” as a whole. Beck is a fringe idiot and his audience really isn’t that large a percentage of political commentary shows, and certainly a fractional percentage of the US public. However, it would be an equal mistake to dismiss him as entirely unrepresentative of political discourse in the US.
There is a troubling aspect to Beck, and it’s that he’s given a public platform by a major “news” network to air his lunacy. His theories and overblown connections (as demonstrated by this latest “Archduke Ferdinand Moment” reference to Tunisia) are far from the mainstream, but his basic political viewpoint of anti-tax, anti-government faux libertarianism has become pretty well represented in the extreme right of the Republican Party. This has had the unfortunate result of pushing moderate voices to the opposite margin of the GOP, reducing the ability of Congress to reach moments of consensus.
So you may have no cause to fear Beck’s ravings becoming gospel to any significant portion of his viewership, but I’d argue that his very presence on a prominent national stage is symptomatic of a pretty bad trend in US politics.
With the exception of Glenn Beck, who, as was mentioned, is crazy, the conservative response seems motivated by one of two things, either as a way to attack Obama for his actions or inaction, which they’re going to do because he’s their political enemy, or fear that revolution in Egypt will lead to an Egypt controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist groups, and such a government would be hostile to the US and Israel.
Glenn Beck is like the 9/11 truthers, jewish conspiracy, or aliens in the backyard types. Sometimes they’re amusing to listen to. Usually they’re exasperating to listen to. But they’re never informative to listen to. However, if you ever find yourself thinking ‘He might be right…’ then it’s time to have yourself institutionalized until you can return to reality.
Without wanting to go into great detail, everything Glenn Beck says is wrong. His commentary is designed to appeal to a very small segment of the population who nobody else has ever targeted - the terminally stupid, and stoned college kids.
If you heard about the Dutch PW marketing itself to the mentally challenged, you have a good handle on what Beck is. It’s just that he’s like that all the time.
He is a male Sarah Palin pandering to a select audience. He upsets a lot of people. He makes many other laugh at the absurdity. But to his small group, he is a prophet.
Palin is a little more subdued, but just a little. She says all the right buzz words firing up her followers. They appear to be a little saner, but just a little.
They both have a sounding board that targets their listeners while not reaching the masses. Most just get the sound bites on the news or on the internet. But their following is pretty rabid.
I think it’s more old people than college students. One of the bloggers over at Frum Forum discusses a rising phenomenon among him and his reasonable conservative friends: parents who have become insufferable since starting to watch Glenn Beck. I think it’s quite sad that it seems that an increasing number of people are going to have the last years they spend with their parents being consumed by the parents anger at the manufactured reality of a charlatan. I don’t understand how anyone involved with allowing this crap on the air sleeps at night.
Here’s the problem with talk radio folks: They have to fill ungodly amounts of air time, and they can never shut up, because dead air is to be avoided like the plague. So guys like Rush, and Beck, and Michael Savage, have to come up with stuff to say. All the time. They start weaving conspiracies, or trying to connect dots, or whatever.
Plus, this stuff gets ratings. The people who like him eat it up, and the people who don’t like him listen to see what crazy shit he’s going to say next. Every time he says something loopy, it gets repeated in the media, on blogs and message boards, and around water coolers. Best. Advertising. Ever.
There’s usually some kind of kernel of plausibility deep inside the madness - just enough to give his followers enough ammo to keep the debate going and keep his name in the headlines.
This is probably the source of Beck’s claim, and it’s in the mainstream media. But of course, the existence of a few people who want a Caliphate is not at all evidence that this is what’s taking place, and I don’t know how you connect the dots between students protesting unemployment in France and Egyptian Muslims rioting against a despotic regime. But when criticized, Beck can point at articles like this and say, “Is the Washington Post crazy too?”
Okay, so I clicked on the thread in the first post, read the video, did a few things, and then reposted the video, forgetting I originally saw it from a link in this thread.
Hizb ut-Tahrir ??? And the demos happen on Tahrir place? Am I the only one that can connect the dots here? Hum?? Hummm???!!
By the way, Zeyno Baran, if that isnt a Supervillain name, I dont know what is.
Only old people actually listen to Beck, but lots of college students watch him. I am an alumnus advisor to my fraternity chapter, and Drinking Beck is one of their favorite things to do when not going to class. I gather the practice is not limited to that particular chapter.
It used to be “drink every time he makes an inappropriate historical reference”, but they had to tone it down a bit.
Now, obviously Beck doesn’t want college kids watching- I mean, they’re not calling up Goldline after the show, so there’s nothing in it for him- but they count toward the ratings.