Is Glenn Beck The Next Bill O’Reilly?

glenn-beckIf you don’t know, Glenn Beck is a former morning radio disc jockey and still performs comedy in shows across the country. This year, he left Headline News to host his own news program on Fox News and has been met with incredible ratings:

Barely two months into his job at Fox, his program is a phenomenon: it typically draws about 2.3 million viewers, more than any other cable news host except Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity, despite being on at 5 p.m., a slow shift for cable news.

That’s right, he’s in third place across all of cable (take that, Olbermann!) and he has a 5:00 PM time slot.

Beck offers a performance that in emotionality is probably close or equal to O’Reilly’s, but while O’Reilly is often more angry, Beck comes off more as a fellow victim to those to whom he’s speaking. For example, Beck often cries.

Yes, cries.

Some historians believe that Beck’s popularity is similar to those who were popular in the Great Depression and that drew on people’s fear and frustrations:

[Beck] says that America is “on the road to socialism” and that “God and religion are under attack in the U.S.” He recently wondered aloud whether FEMA was setting up concentration camps, calling it a rumor that he was unable to debunk.

While the topics are serious, Beck still identifies as a nothing more than an entertainer: “I’m a rodeo clown.”

Recently, Stephen Colbert took Beck on and ripped him about 17 new assholes:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

I would love to see Beck appear on Colbert’s show only because I think they would be much better matched than Stewart and Cramer.

More: Fox News’s Mad, Apocalyptic, Tearful Rising Star (NYT)

Update: It’s not socialism that Obama is bringing, it’s non-violent fascism:

Mark my words: this guy is going to have one huge future.


11 Responses to Is Glenn Beck The Next Bill O’Reilly?

  1. apa says:

    Glenn Beck is a cog in the Fix News propaganda machine. He subverts everything “the news” is supposed to represent with fanaticism. See ONE of
    his latest blunders at

  2. Carog says:

    I love that Fox is the propaganda machine. And CNN, MSNBC, and others are the fair networks….face it they all have thier own agendas. they report the news, not based on facts , but on what that peticular networks demo is. get over yourself, CNN lies too. but since they share your point of veiw you turn a blind eye to it, and condem anyone who opposes your veiw, calling them fanatics.

  3. apa says:

    I never said anything about CNN, MSNBC and other networks being fair networks. I never mentioned another network at all. All I did was point out the propaganda element and fanaticism with Glenn Beck and Fix news.

    I agree entirely that the other’s are just as much involved in propaganda as Fox news. Incidentally, I don’t share a view with any of them.

    The larger point is the nature of news and propaganda such as may roughly be correlated with the idea of Lippmann and the “bewildered herd”. I further purport that education of propaganda and its many faces will allow people to make better sense of what is thrown upon them as fact but is really only media bias.

    Let me know where you see it and would be glad to give it equal attention. Thanks for your post

  4. Mr. See says:

    Being succinct in your primary post would have prevented the need for clarification on the larger point omitted. By injecting your opine focused on two derogatory claims, leaving out the news as a whole. You appear just as bias to what you deride by labeling the man a cog on fix news and a link to discredit him further. Some character traits are hard to keep subtle and sincerely unbiased under the accuracy of first impressions.

    A good rule to live by is, believe only half of what you see or hear and even less of what you read. The lazy and apethetic will not give either due diligence to know the difference before they repeat it as intellectual fact from their trusted source.

  5. FYI says:

    The larger point omitted does not detract from the lesser point of a coherent frame of thought. Additionally, what you perceive as derogatory and then concluding bias may be apropos for the subject as it appears in one context, but may have little to do with the reality of the situation. Perhaps, it merely indicates that you have responded to a simple play of propaganda – a subject is framed and then debate is held within the frame, without questioning the frame of reference itself. Perhaps, my simple goal was to advertize a website, drive people to it and profit by there visitation. As you mentioned, you should really believe only half of what you see or hear and even less of what you read.

  6. Mr. See says:

    If we must read in between the lines to infer the writers coherence of thought, context or omitted reality within 2 sentences, what purpose does communication really have in conveying a message that was very direct at who and what sources were targeted? The majority of readers would only be jumping to one conclusion, Beck and Fox news were this posters problem. Not just part of some omitted larger point.

    Had the story been about Keith instead of Glenn, the reader would probably get the same conclusion if the OP included something like DOberman or his rumored progeny son on MSNBC was putting off puberty far too long and here’s a link. Bias is bias. More like dirt to throw, a score to settle.

    You are right in one respect. Baiting trolls obfuscate and dance around defending their faux pas as part of the game of intellectual mimicry. if aba and fyi are one in the same nothing would surprize me. Integity isn’t a web requirement.

    I didn’t say I believed the statements read. Just what it says about character biases and first impressions in an oxymoronic claim from the appearnce of another subverting anti-fox fanatic….aka; derangement syndrome sufferer spreading their hatred of the opposition. Then clarifying the bigger picture they reeeeally meant, when they had that chance to redeem themself in the prior post. Some people love debasing someone else they have no repect for. They just hate being debased and disrespected themselve’s for doing just that.

    I do agree that news distributors all do their own shtick and pander to their audiences with near all op-ed divisive political commentary. What is unbelievable is that some still deny any bias at all. Those might be the ones to trust least.

  7. FYI says:

    The concept of baiting trolls is also analogous with the way news and propaganda works. One is baited into dialogue in one form or another. Whether one “believes” in statements or not is often far beyond the motive of the dialogue, which may essentially be advertisement. Then again, it may be the straight “mind-to-mouth” belief of the source of the dialogue. In either case, it can help to read between the lines – even an idle question may be sufficient to extend one’s thought beyond the immediacy of the dialogue. As mentioned, “Perhaps, it merely indicates”, “Perhaps, my simple goal”. Where “perhaps” does not qualify a statement as factual or not factual or even a direct affirmation in either direction, but does enter an inferred contrapositive as in “If men had wings…Then….”. Once again, that someone has invested in commentary and appears to be reacting from an emotional level to something they may or may not believe in is an interesting point, in that it sustains the notion of framing in language. As far as news shows or a derivative derogatory name as implied, they are all open the question. As far as the site goes, it currently bears no content as referenced. I hope you have learned something from me, as I have from you.

  8. Anonymous says:

    C’mon FYI,

    Those were direct and pointed blanket statements with no theoretical open ended conditional meaning, leaving the door open to further interpretation. It was someone castigating someone else as the village idiots, thereby blatantly exposing their own ideological leanings adding themselves to the village idiot roll call.

    You are taking the same defense as the news spins the issues by baffling with BS and beclouding the point for the sake of argument from disparate colloquia’s to incomprehensible gibberish which doesn’t apply until you bring it up in an attempt to make it fit. That might make you qualified as a politician or a talking head, but it makes for a poor conversationalist.

    What I have learned is I am wasting time and commentary here. LOL!

  9. FYI says:

    You are correct in your statement “that might make you qualified as a politician or a talking head, but it makes for a poor conversationalist.”; I never posited to be either a politician, a talking head, or a conversationalist. Thank you for establishing a frame and at such a personal level. The fact that you apparently have a need to move toward personal attacks is a rather strong indicator that you are unable or unwilling to keep to the point and argue effectively, and beyond emotion. However, you are incorrect in assuming that I was defending myself. I merely stuck to a point which apparently continues to elude you, but is only strengthened with each posted reply on your part – in essence you have created your own antithesis and have stumbled on your own words. That might make you qualified as a politician or a talking head or a great conversationalist. Funny you mention the village idiot. LOL!

  10. Anonymous says:

    Seriously? Me putting you in the same class of debater as politicians and talking heads was a compliment. A talent I don’t have, nor yearn to achieve. I know you didn’t posit it. I bestowed that crown upon you. Those people use the same tactics. Jump from point to point to point trying to keep the questions in dismay without saying much worth while, and without addressing the core issue raised. I was staying on point. You took it off in some bizarre haphazard tangents of “framing the debate”, If/Then’s or “Perhaps” and all that other dizzy incoherence. Blanket malevolent statements do not take that much brain power to get the gist of. Although I can’t argue with your statement it does start a dialog….. on a negative derisive tone if that was the intent.

    I made an observation of the biased pot calling the biased kettle black and you take that as an emotionally based personal attack? Wow, Apparently my point eludes you too.

    Some semblance of the light turning on here. That is correct, I used my antithesis as an indirect parallelism in defamation. Now we see a reaction. The trap was already set by the first personal attack out of the gate. There was no stumbling. It was intentional to see someone prove my point. Mocking the mockery is like debasing the debaser. My secondary point was they hate that well deserve criticism even when in denial that they ever did it, but were misunderstood.

    If as you say we are to read between the lines, it is obvious, you lurk to argue and defend the indefensible. The foundation of your debating point eludes to excusing the original attack as if it had some larger point as it still stands on its own. Clarification doctored it, but won’t cure it.

    I know I am just another village idiot. It is not my intention to offend, just point out the obvious, which you have been gracious enough to patronize. I don’t pretend to be the village intellectual. Some people thrive on it to give their life meaning.

    Whatever be your pleasure!

  11. themadjewess says:

    Thank goodness there are ‘clowns’ like Beck, or America would be bending over for Obama, hook, line and sinker.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: