Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As unbiased as FN is NBC isn't any better.

CBS and NBC are as left-wing biased as FN is. Both have their nutjobs, both are guilty of sensationalism.

Let's all face it. Journalism, no matter the source, is sensationalized by the MSM for ratings. Right or wrong if the story gets viewers it brings the network $.

It's why Globe and Enquirer are so popular. All made up gak but it sells, even though most people know it's all ridiculous.

Frazzled wrote:

We have free speech in the USA. That means for everyone, including poeple you don't like. As a potential future citizen you might start thinking about that MGS.

Agreed. Free speech. I just won't buy anything from people who advertise during his show.

Free speech is protected, but the consequences of what you say are all yours when your done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:As unbiased as FN is NBC isn't any better.

CBS and NBC are as left-wing biased as FN is. Both have their nutjobs, both are guilty of sensationalism.

Let's all face it. Journalism, no matter the source, is sensationalized by the MSM for ratings. Right or wrong if the story gets viewers it brings the network $.

It's why Globe and Enquirer are so popular. All made up gak but it sells, even though most people know it's all ridiculous.

How about NPR?

I watch BBC America for my news.

Frazzled wrote:We have free speech in the USA. That means for everyone, including poeple you don't like. As a potential future citizen you might start thinking about that MGS.

Only if you consider the debate over public discourse to begin and end with government involvement. You're absolutely right that there's no place for government to come in and take him off the air.

But you're absolutely wrong in ignoring the responsibility FOX news, their affiliated networks, and those on Beck's side of politics have to look at what he's saying and really, honestly question if he should be allowed to continue spouting hate-filled nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:It would be like me musing as to whether or not I could kill Noam Chomsky.

No, you couldn't. THe man might not look like much but he carries knives all about his person. He would cut you up.

Fateweaver wrote:
CBS and NBC are as left-wing biased as FN is. Both have their nutjobs, both are guilty of sensationalism.

MSNBC, sure, but the other major networks are no particularly left-leaning.

There's this weird tendency on the right and extreme left (lots of people I went to school with claim CNN et al as Conservative shills), most likely associated with zero-sum conceptions of power, to assume that anything that isn't for you is against you. This was really obvious during the Giffords coverage, as many people tried to call out news networks for stating that certain people claimed it was motivated by Conservatism.

There is an important distinction between saying that someone else is saying X, and actually saying X. A distinction that is apparently lost on large swathes of the population.

ChrisWWII wrote:As right as you may be, Glenn Beck is not reponsible for the insanity of his base. Yes, there may be a crazy person who decides to act on Glenn Beck's word and go kill Michael Moore, but Glenn Beck isn't legally responsible for that, and until he breaks the laws about free speech, he is well within his rights to say anything he wants.

Believing one's responsibilities begin and end with the legality of the situation is basically the expert's guide to being an donkey-cave.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Does this mean that J.D. Salinger is responsible for writing and awful book, and for killing John Lennon?

It's a good book

And surely there's some measure of common sense involved in relating the message given and the one received. If Someone claimed that the Tides Foundation is part of a leftist conspiracy to take over America* and a guy took up arms to stop them*, is not the same thing as someone writing a book about a ferret lost in the big city, and a guy reading it and thinking it's a code telling him to the kill the vice president in charge of marketing at Coca Cola.




*This is really happened by the way, Beck claimed that about the entirely obscure Tides Foundation, and a guy gathered his guns and drove there, only for police to attempt to pull him over for speeding on the way. He was arrested following a shoot out with police.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Am I the only one that thinks that the lady Beck was talking about was spouting some pretty wacky gak herself?

No doubt. But she's nothing more than a whacky intellectual on the absolute fringes of academia, and he's a guy with a prime time tv show. The lunacy of one of these people actually matters, the lunacy of the other doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:How right you are Alby, Frances Fox Piven is an advocate of violent revolution in her politics.

She's an almost wrote the book in the 1960s. Calling her out now as a sudden threat to the freedoms of US citizens is like declaring the Weather Underground a dramatic new threat to the US. It's scare mongering nonsense.

The sheer amount of fascistic thought on this thread pains my soul. "I don't like what he says, take him off the air!" That's a cry from a fascist.

First of all, if you're going to comment on the thread please actually read it. No-one has stated he should be taken off the air because they don't like what he says.

Second of all, if you're going to comment on fascism or public speech please read about what each is, and how they are in fact entirely different things. A state can have tight media controls, or even entirely state controlled media, and not be fascist in the slightest. All you're doing is showing your love for incendiary name calling is much greater than your interest in what words actually mean.

I would suggest you get the view straight from the source, not saying you have to agree with him or even enjoy watching his show or listening to his radio program, just don't take someone else's word for it.

I've seen the show, lots. It isn't that he's biased, it's that his show makes no sense. In fact, it isn't even that he makes no sense, it's that he is almost entirely indifferent to the idea of making sense. He just doesn't care if his political arguments make any sense.

Stop being childish people.

Indeed.

sebster wrote:
It's a good book

I can't respect you anymore.

sebster wrote:
And surely there's some measure of common sense involved in relating the message given and the one received. If Someone claimed that the Tides Foundation is part of a leftist conspiracy to take over America* and a guy took up arms to stop them*, is not the same thing as someone writing a book about a ferret lost in the big city, and a guy reading it and thinking it's a code telling him to the kill the vice president in charge of marketing at Coca Cola.




*This is really happened by the way, Beck claimed that about the entirely obscure Tides Foundation, and a guy gathered his guns and drove there, only for police to attempt to pull him over for speeding on the way. He was arrested following a shoot out with police.

Yeah, no question there is a qualitative difference. I'm merely saying that the difference isn't categorical, and so it remains the sort of thing that the legal system should be left out of.

As you said before, the state should do nothing, but his viewers and benefactors probably should do something.

Albatross wrote:Nevertheless, the fact remains that Piven sounds equally as crazy.

Equally crazy, but entirely irrelevant. I mean, who'd even heard of her before Beck started talking about her on his show?

There are people who are crazier than both Beck and Piven, you can find them standing on street corners wearing their underwear outside of their pants. But they aren't given prime time tv shows, so we don't really worry about their impact on the national discourse. In terms of her impact, Piven is much closer to the crazy on the street corner than she is to Glenn Beck.

Ok,but where do we draw the line?
Glenn Becks rhetoric may inspire some crazy to grab some guns and shoot Micheal Moore..ok.
What about the Televangelist who's rhetoric inspired some nut to load his car with guns and go hunting for Marilyn Manson...do we ban him as well?
What about inflammatory music that allegedly inspires youth to commit crime in an attempt to be "Gangsta"...do we get rid of that too?
Once we start outlawing offensive speech..where do we stop?

Fateweaver wrote:As unbiased as FN is NBC isn't any better.

NBC isn't great, and is getting worse, but pretending it's anywhere near FOX is ridiculous.

CBS and NBC are as left-wing biased as FN is.

That's completely ridiculous.

Both have their nutjobs, both are guilty of sensationalism.

Let's all face it. Journalism, no matter the source, is sensationalized by the MSM for ratings. Right or wrong if the story gets viewers it brings the network $.

Yes, most MSM sources are bad, and most are getting worse. FOX is much worse than any other. Pretending otherwise is allowing oneself to believe a truly ridiculous thing, and doing it for the sake of a political convenience.

sebster wrote:
I've seen the show, lots. It isn't that he's biased, it's that his show makes no sense. In fact, it isn't even that he makes no sense, it's that he is almost entirely indifferent to the idea of making sense. He just doesn't care if his political arguments make any sense.

Word.

If he actually believes what he says, and I really doubt that he does, then he's basically just Rainbow Randolph.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
Equally crazy, but entirely irrelevant. I mean, who'd even heard of her before Beck started talking about her on his show?

They aren't equally crazy, though. Yeah, she wants more rights for the poor, lots of people do. However, the whole thing about her desiring the collapse of the state is simply wrong. As I said before, the Nation article she wrote is about her beliefs with respect to intended inefficiency in the bureaucracy, and how it might be rectified by "force".

I think her assessment is wrong, but not so wrong as to be crazy.

dogma wrote:I can't respect you anymore.

Never been a bright but disaffected young kid, simultaneously full of naivety and cynicism?

Yeah, no question there is a qualitative difference. I'm merely saying that the difference isn't categorical, and so it remains the sort of thing that the legal system should be left out of.

There is a point where you reach incitement to violence, but yeah, Beck is nowhere near that point.

As you said before, the state should do nothing, but his viewers and benefactors probably should do something.

Absolutely

sebster wrote:
Never been a bright but disaffected young kid, simultaneously full of naivety and cynicism?

Sure, but I didn't read Catcher until I was no longer disaffected.

And I agree with dogma, Catcher in the Rye is pretty much a waste of the paper on which it's printed.

Like a lot of things, when you read it is going have as much of an impact as the fact that you read it. Of course considering the limited knowledge of today's youth and their short attention span I imagine a book that doesn't reference the internet, cell phones, or Nikki Minaj while simultaneously not having hyperlinks would be impossible to get through. It wouldn't surprise me if schools had to use the Illustrated Classics versions of books in High School these days. They would still need a teacher on hand to help of course becuase anything pre-1995 is treated like it is from the Roman Era. Richard Nixon...not just a head in a jar.


I'm kidding of course.

Fateweaver wrote:As unbiased as FN is NBC isn't any better.

CBS and NBC are as left-wing biased as FN is. Both have their nutjobs, both are guilty of sensationalism.

That koolaid must be delicious.

Let's all face it. Journalism, no matter the source, is sensationalized by the MSM for ratings. Right or wrong if the story gets viewers it brings the network $.

It's why Globe and Enquirer are so popular. All made up gak but it sells, even though most people know it's all ridiculous.

I don't think you've seen the enquirers sales lately.

I don't watch that much right wing news, what is MSM?

sebster wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:As right as you may be, Glenn Beck is not reponsible for the insanity of his base. Yes, there may be a crazy person who decides to act on Glenn Beck's word and go kill Michael Moore, but Glenn Beck isn't legally responsible for that, and until he breaks the laws about free speech, he is well within his rights to say anything he wants.

Believing one's responsibilities begin and end with the legality of the situation is basically the expert's guide to being an donkey-cave.

Hell yes it is, and I don't pretend to believe it's true. I like to think that I am not a donkey cave, and I fully believe that just because someone is legally innocent of a crime there is still the possibility that they are guilty, just not in a way the law can punish. However, for purproses of censoring free speech? We have to go with what the law says, even if it means lettign people we'd rather not have on TV talking to the whole world on TV.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:As unbiased as FN is NBC isn't any better.

CBS and NBC are as left-wing biased as FN is. Both have their nutjobs, both are guilty of sensationalism.

That koolaid must be delicious.

Let's all face it. Journalism, no matter the source, is sensationalized by the MSM for ratings. Right or wrong if the story gets viewers it brings the network $.

It's why Globe and Enquirer are so popular. All made up gak but it sells, even though most people know it's all ridiculous.

I don't think you've seen the enquirers sales lately.

If you seriously think MSNBC and CBS are not liberal biased then you are as delusional as I always figured you to be.

How's the Liberal Koolaid? Probably not as tasty as the Conservative Koolaid I drink

Might as well...

Emperors Faithful wrote:Might as well...

Well done Sir.

I'm not a lover of plaid. I prefer stripes.

Fateweaver wrote:I'm not a lover of plaid. I prefer stripes.

Shadup I'm sleepy over here.

There...fixed it.

Fateweaver wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:As unbiased as FN is NBC isn't any better.

CBS and NBC are as left-wing biased as FN is. Both have their nutjobs, both are guilty of sensationalism.

That koolaid must be delicious.

Let's all face it. Journalism, no matter the source, is sensationalized by the MSM for ratings. Right or wrong if the story gets viewers it brings the network $.

It's why Globe and Enquirer are so popular. All made up gak but it sells, even though most people know it's all ridiculous.

I don't think you've seen the enquirers sales lately.

If you seriously think MSNBC and CBS are not liberal biased then you are as delusional as I always figured you to be.

How's the Liberal Koolaid? Probably not as tasty as the Conservative Koolaid I drink

MSNBC is left leaning for sure. but seriously folks, Fox news and the endless array of conservative talk shows that exist, are the only things most conservative people
will believe. anything outside of that collection tends to fall into the catagory of "Main Stream Media" meaning it's not to be trusted. i'm sorry, i prefer to have the facts laid out
in front of me and let me make up my own mind. not have someone tell be what i think. or "these are the facts which could only mean ______".

dogma wrote:Sure, but I didn't read Catcher until I was no longer disaffected.

Well there's your problem right there.

Ahtman wrote:I don't watch that much right wing news, what is MSM?

Mainstream media. It's used by the right wing to complain about all the news services that don't just list all the Republican talking points.

If you try and point out that FOX news is by far the biggest cable news service, and is therefore more mainstream than anyone... then it gets really weird.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote:Hell yes it is, and I don't pretend to believe it's true. I like to think that I am not a donkey cave, and I fully believe that just because someone is legally innocent of a crime there is still the possibility that they are guilty, just not in a way the law can punish. However, for purproses of censoring free speech? We have to go with what the law says, even if it means lettign people we'd rather not have on TV talking to the whole world on TV.

Yeah, but no-one was talking about government banning Beck or anyone else. That was just something Fraz decided to argue against for reasons known only to him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:If you seriously think MSNBC and CBS are not liberal biased then you are as delusional as I always figured you to be.

Yes, they're biased, NBC in particular has made an effort to court liberal voters. But your original claim stated they were just as biased as FOX, which is completely ridiculous.

Don't make an outrageous claim then try to shift the goalposts so that you can defend something more reasonable. Or at least, don't do it so obviously. To paraphrase Charlie Brown's famous line, I'm less offended that you'd play a little game like that, and more offended that you think we're stupid enough to fall for it.

That's your opinion.

In my opinion from watching MSNBC it seems as if MSNBC is sleeping with Obama and the liberal side of the podium.

But when you sleep with someone you tend to be biased, eh?

Fateweaver wrote:That's your opinion.

In my opinion from watching MSNBC it seems as if MSNBC is sleeping with Obama and the liberal side of the podium.

But when you sleep with someone you tend to be biassed, eh?

Fixed.

Couldn't help it

Fateweaver wrote:That's your opinion.

In my opinion from watching MSNBC it seems as if MSNBC is sleeping with Obama and the liberal side of the podium.

But when you sleep with someone you tend to be biased, eh?

You didn't answer my point on changing goalposts. So again, do you consider NBC and CNN to be as biased as FOX news, or simply biased to some extent?

Fateweaver wrote:That's your opinion.

In my opinion from watching MSNBC it seems as if MSNBC is sleeping with Obama and the liberal side of the podium.

But when you sleep with someone you tend to be biased, eh?

There's a difference between claiming that MSNBC is as biased as FOX (it is), and claiming that every other news group is just as biased as FOX (they aren't).

Fateweaver wrote:That's your opinion.

In my opinion from watching MSNBC it seems as if MSNBC is sleeping with Obama and the liberal side of the podium.

But when you sleep with someone you tend to be biased, eh?

It helps that you swallow everything fox feeds you, they kinda set you up to believe that. I mean, past precedent shows you're fairly misinformed on a very wide range of politically related topics. It would make sense that you would then often times regard minor bias or the truth itself as being hugely biased towards liberal agendas. Your reality skews more conservative then the real one likely precisely because you get so much of your information through centers that filter it for the conservative taste.