|
||
Glenn Beck and The Consequences of Crazy Talk
Right off the bat, allow me to be perfectly clear: I don't want Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity or any of the other far-right talkers to be silenced or fired, that is unless their corporate bosses decide they ought to be silenced or fired. And if they are, I hope it's for a funny reason -- like Hannity getting caught on a surveillance camera peeing into the break room coffee pot, or Glenn Beck conspiring with Billy Bibbit to steal all of Charlie Cheswick's cigarettes.
That said it's becoming increasingly evident that the recent shooting sprees aren't just isolated incidents, but are actually part of a dangerous trend. And regardless of whether or not there's a direct connection with the usual cable news and talk radio suspects, broadcasters like Beck ought to take responsibility for some of their more incendiary remarks -- remarks which appear to be ginning up the darker, uglier, fanatical tendencies in an already militaristic, jingoistic, reactionary audience.
I don't think I'm alone in this. For example:
...in this day and age where we have a lot of fanatics out there, I find the whole concept unbelievably irresponsible. Did you not think that there are people that are going to see this and maybe take an idea like that and run with it? Did you think about that? [...] You've got to -- do you not have a responsibility to think of the impact, the impressions that could be made on people?
That was Sean Hannity on October 26, 2006 interviewing the director of the mock-documentary The Death of a President, a film that dramatized the potential aftermath of a successful assassination attempt against George W. Bush. Hannity was saying in no uncertain terms that merely discussing a violent act might encourage a viewer to do something crazy, and so the purveyor of such a discussion is being dangerously irresponsible.
Oddly enough, I agree with Hannity in theory, though not in terms of context. Hannity and others on the far-right seem to crap their cages only when it comes to works of make-believe. Video games, Teletubbies, Spongebob. Yet real-life cable news networks, according to Beck and others, should be allowed to broadcast whatever insanity happens to achieve the biggest ratings regardless of taste, standards, ethics or professional responsibility.
To wit: on the Monday edition of his FOX News show, Glenn Beck was outraged that anyone would look to his militaristic rants and crying jags -- specifically his Obama-is-coming-for-our-guns hysteria -- as a possible contributing factor in last weekend's Pittsburgh shooting spree during which an ultra-far-right maniac murdered several police officers in cold blood because he feared his guns would be taken away by President Obama:
Blaming anyone except the nut job for what happened in Pittsburgh is crazy.
Okay, but here's the problem. The Glenn Beck who said this on Monday is clearly at odds with the Glenn Beck of Spring 2008 who blamed the video game Grand Theft Auto for "training our kids to be killers" and "our sons to treat women like whores."
I'm confused. I thought that blaming anyone except the "nut jobs" would be "crazy."
Although to be fair, maybe he wasn't really blaming video games after all. Glenn Beck of 2008 said:
I wanna make one thing clear before we go any further. I am not blaming all of society's problems on video games. That would be stupid to do.
Phew! That was close. For a second there, I thought he was going to say something really stupid.
It is the entire pop culture. It's music, it's movies, it's radio, it's television, it's all of it!
All of it! Not the "nut jobs." All of pop culture. In fact, Glenn Beck of 2008 didn't even mention "nut jobs" or the like during this particular rant. The entire pop culture is to blame for all of society's problems -- including the two forms of media in which Glenn Beck (both of them) works. Beck of 2008 went on to cite an American Medical Association report indicating that television alone caused a doubling of the homicide rate in America.
So I wonder what Beck 2008 would say about the following pre-scripted statement by Beck 2009 on his FOX News Channel television program:
There's only two ways for this movie to end. Either the economy becomes like the walking dead, or you drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers.
For the sake of clarification, prior to calling for the "bloodsuckers" to be figuratively murdered, Beck showed a graphic of President Obama and other Democrats photoshopped to look like vampires. President Obama, according to Beck 2009, ought to have a stake driven through his heart. Figuratively, of course.
Responsible television indeed.
Now, I know it's a stretch to assume that Glenn Beck understands the difference between reality and fantasy but if we take him at his word, he seems to be suggesting that fictional video game characters and the people who design them ought to be held to a higher ethical standard than, you know, Glenn Beck. And the news. Most of us, however, understand the direct opposite to be true.
The news media, either in the form of commentary or hard news, has a responsibility to remain within certain ethical boundaries, primarily because it operates in the context of the real world -- not to mention the prestige of being the only industry to be specifically listed in the Bill of Rights. Viewers, listeners and readers, for better or worse, take the news seriously because it's packaged and sold as an authoritative, credible and accurate delivery method for understanding and observing events both seen and unseen.
So it stands to reason that people might take Beck or Michele Bachmann seriously when they say, in the context of a news network and with convincing zeal, that President Obama is a Manchurian candidate and a Nazi who's shoving dissenters and children into concentration camps, and therefore we have an obligation to become "armed and dangerous" in order to save America.
At the same time, however, this form of commentary happens to be constitutionally protected speech and press. But even First Amendment absolutists will admit that freedom and responsibility aren't mutually exclusive. If you broadcast these sorts of outlandish ideas -- especially in a news forum -- you have a responsibility to own both the speech and its consequences. And if Beck chooses not to own what he says, he probably shouldn't be so outraged when people call him on his insanity or his lack of credibility or his unethical behavior.
It's no secret that Beck fancies himself as a real-life Howard Beale. He's deluded himself into cherrypicking just the heroic "mad as hell" rant while conveniently overlooking that Beale was a tragic, suicidal man who was suffering from an extended nervous breakdown. Beck has to know on some level that Paddy Chayefsky's eerily prescient screenplay for Network wasn't written to glorify people like Beck -- it was a warning to us about the emergence of people like Beck. It was a warning to us about how the line between fantasy and the news was beginning to blur in the face of ratings and profit.
This anything-goes attitude appears to be the source of Beck's wildest rants. After all, the most dangerous aspect of Beck's show isn't necessarily what he says, it's that he appears to be inclined to say anything while enouraging his viewers to believe anything "even if it's wrong." Fine, if he's going that far out on a limb, then he needs to seriously consider taking responsibility for his nonsensical, inflammatory statements. And perhaps once he accepts the potential consequences of his words, he'll reconsider some of the more incendiary ones.
UPDATE: Coincidentally, Keith Olbermann aired a similar Beck 2008 vs. Beck 2009 bit during his Worst Persons segment, aired 35 minutes after I posted this column. Glad to see I'm not the only one to have observed the schizophrenic hypocrisy. Huzzah, Keith!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
One phrase jumped out at me:
"... freedom and responsibility aren't mutually exclusive."
Bertrand Russell said "Freedom means responsibility. That's why most men dread it."
But there are two kinds of freedom. The kind Mr Russell refers to might be called "adult" freedom, which means you're free because you take responsibility for what you do. Or maybe it could be phrased "Responsibility means freedom." An attitude of responsibility is most liberating.
The other kind would be "child" freedom, which means freedom to do whatever I want. Without regard to consequences.
they are using the rhetoric to ramp up the radicals.
all it takes is one radical getting worked up enough to do something horrible, then they'll all back off and disclaim any responsibility.
This is a very thoughtful piece, and one that points to the degraded and hysterical nature of political discourse today.
The biggest oversight, of course, is that it fails to mention that there is just as much vitriol and over-the-top rhetoric on the left - George Bush was routinely called a Nazi, Dick Cheney even worse, and the term "fascist" is thrown around pretty much at random directed at anybody who shows conservative political sympathies.
So while a case might be made (in the court of public opinion, not law) that incindiary political rhetoric by talk hosts on the right can be damaging, the same has to be said of talk hosts on the left.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
sparnell@campaignfreedom.org
OK. Please tell us what corporate supported cable news presenter called George Bush a Nazi, Dick Cheney even worse (what exactly is worse than calling someone a Nazi) and who used the term "fascist" at anybody who shows conservative political sympathies. Who is this mystery person?
Making stuff up is hardly an argument, although it seems to have been the overriding philosophy of the Republican party in recent years.
I think John Stewart and Maureen Dowd referred to Cheney as Darth Vader.
I also believe that President Bush was given the benefit-of-office for more than his fair share, before being widely criticized (high approval rating post-9/11).
But in the end, starting a war-of-choice, running ever expanding budget deficits (with nothing to show for the investments), turning back civil rights, breaking what worked in government (i.e., FEMA worked before Brownie, so did the Justice Department), allowing a near collapse of the financial structure are the legacy of Bush-Cheney, and on-and-on. Bush-Cheney legacy is that they are villians - the criticism was warranted.
Typical hypocritical hyperbole of the right from Mr. Parnell.
When Bush was in office, I was told that if you don't support our president in a time of war, that I was anti American and unpatriotic. I was also told "America, love it or leave it." We are still at war. We still have a president. Love it or leave it.
Name one newscaster who said on air that Bush should be killed.
Sexuality should be allowed on television. The only answer to their hate-porn is our love-porn. The only product of the news corporation is fear, anger and hate these days. Where are Hugh Heffners and Larry Flynts to make it all better for us?
Do you feel that these Fox commentators have the right to cry fire in a crowded theater?
I really don't understand why Cesca is even trying to make a logical argument about the connections within Beck's various rants, statements and causes.
As well as he's done, us occasional listeners and watchers (just checking to see if Beck's still the same old - same old nut bag), already have Beck identified, tagged and released. Beck's simply a wack job with a mike and a video camera pandering to other wack jobs. But they don't have mikes, cameras and TV shows...they have guns.
Beck has gone beyond being entertainment and into the realm of the incendiary. I know the Supreme Court of my youth wouldn't mind allowing the justice system to put him away for "shouting fire in a crowded theater". That's what he's doing. Murdock is allowing it. It's incendiary rabble rousing at best. Stoking a potential firestorm at worst.
Anything really violent comes of his and Rush's encitement to rebellion and maybe they should both be locked up. Where's Hoover when we need him.
You want the government to jail people with whom you disagree? Why are leftists so quick to call for this? Are you not familiar with the first amendment?
When the thing we're disagreeing about is whether or not you have the right to take up arms and rise up in insurrection against our duly elected representatives, yeah, they have to go to jail. It's dangerous for the children to let them run about free with their guns, believing that particular opinion.
I always love that question/argument from those on the right. Truly ironic. All during the Bush years those who disagreed with his election, his policies and his war were harassed, bad-mouthed and called "unAmerican". People who didn't tow the right-wing line were fired. Do you supposed that was because they chose to disagree?
And the first amendment only guarantees free speech, it doesn't guarantee no consequences for that speech. Libel and slander are also "free speech, but you certainly may face with some consequences for spreading them.
Julia, this is nothing more than the witch hunts that took place centuries ago....One person starts some rant - doesn't matter that there are no facts (as no one else is reporting such blither) It's simply the Libs/Dems way of "having to blame someone" other than the sorry individual that committed the act. No one on here has a CLUE about the kid.
What about the various shootings that occurred over the last 20 years - I imagine those are all Bush's fault.....????
JulieSA, I know some of these people, the 'right wing nuts', and they are getting really scarry! They laugh about the guns they have, and the revolution to start, and they don't even care who is who, they are just going to start shooting, and they'll sort it out when everybodies dead. I actually heard this conversation
I really don't understand why Cesca is even trying to make a logical argument about the connections within Beck's various rants, statements and causes.
------------------------------------------
It's a public service. Also I note that after saying that you do exactly the same when you write: "Beck has gone beyond being entertainment and into the realm of the incendiary. I know the Supreme Court of my youth wouldn't mind allowing the justice system to put him away for "shouting fire in a crowded theater". That's what he's doing. Murdock is allowing it. It's incendiary rabble rousing at best. Stoking a potential firestorm at worst.
Anything really violent comes of his and Rush's encitement to rebellion and maybe they should both be locked up. Where's Hoover when we need him."
OK so I'm confused. Why ask a question about why it's worth Bob's time commenting on Beck... only then to exactly the same thing one paragraph later and offer your OWN comment on Beck?
The standards you just applied to Bob were not actually the same standards you've applied to yourself. Just sayin.
My point wasn't whether Cesca should comment about Beck. I was just pointing out that it doesn't make any sense to try to tie his rants together in some logical way. Beck defies logic all the time... either on purpose or because of his personality (disorder). I hope Bob continues to keep Beck in the crosshairs of commentary.
My apologies if pointing this out had an element of logic to it. When it comes to Beck, no more is needed.
Unfortunately, while we can all wring our hands and protest long and loud about the excesses of Glen Beck, his masters at Fox are paying him to be outrageous. Such a personality cannot stop to consider for even a second how irresponsible he comments are -- if he is a human being with a conscience, he could not continue to do such things. He, like Mr. Limbaugh, needs to keep talking without thinking -- just cash the check. The only cure for the Becks and the Limbaughs is for us to stop listening to them. If there is no profit, there is no incentive to pay them. Unfortunately, I don't think that's going to happen. Beck will continue to strive for more and more thoughtless irresponsibility and Rupert Murdock will continue to write the checks.
Beck meet Beckett.. Thomas 'a Becket that is.. the Archbisiop of Canterbury who was mistakenly assinated in 1170 after four knights overheard King Henry of York excalim "Will no one rid me of this insolent priest?!!!" and "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?"
As the story goes the four of the knights interpreted these statements as being a royal command to murder the bishop.. which they did. Beckett soon became venerated across Europe as a martyr and even the king was forced to humble himself and perform acts of pennance.
"King Beck" should realize that words have consequences. It's OK to rant and vent.. but it's the ranters responsibility to reign in the crazies before they those incindiary words seriously.
So he is also a comedian? I do not find him to be funny.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TV_BECKS_TOUR?SITE=AZYUM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
I am intrigued by both Beck's invocation of "Nazis" and his photoshopping of Obama and company to look like inhuman, grotesque beasts.
I seem to recall WWII-era posters, showing a particular type of people, caricatured as grotesque and inhuman and therefore despicable. The posters were created BY the Nazis. The grotesque people were known as "Jews".
Anyone have any recollection of how THAT turned out?
Well said. Additionally, I am reminded of Rwanda, where, on national radio, Tutsi people were likened to cockroaches that needed to be stamped out. And indeed they were stamped out - many by lifelong friends and neighbors. There was nearly no one left to tell the story. As long as there is ignorance, there will be hatred.
I don't see it. I have never heard Glenn Beck talk of harming the president, as mock-documentary The Death of a President did regarding Pres. Bush..
I just see Beck talk about the erosion of our rights, including having guns taken away from law-abiding citizens. I don't see a connection with worry about this right and gun violence. The right is guaranteed in the 2nd amendment and always on attack by the left.
I do however see the erosion of our culture through TV, and video games. Grand Theft Auto lets the player be a criminal. No judgement that being a criminal is bad--it is just on of the roles that can be played.
Yo Jazz... a psychologist would have a field day, with how you just turned Glenn Beck's and Sean Hannity's hypocritical "value system" into a Chinese menu. Where you can "pick one from column A and one from column B", in order to rationalize the inherent fraudulence of their laughable inconsistencies.
And remember, Sparky: George Bush kept us safe. Starting first thing, on the morning of September 12th.
How do you not see Beck pouring "gasoline" over a substitute "American" and saying why doesn't the Administration (read: Obama) just set us on fire as talk directly saying the President of the United States wants to kill us, immolate us, SET US ON FIRE. How do you not see Glenn Beck exhorting his audience to "rise up" as not encouraging violence against Obama and anyone supporting him? Why do you not see his Situation Room or War Room or whatever he calls it (I would rather smother myself with a dirty gym towel than actually watch 30 seconds of his show) as his bunker, a place where he must hide to be safe from Them Who Want to Take Away His Rights and His Guns? You don't see encouraging others to hide in bunkers with their guns as threatening? Are you hiding in a bunker with your gun, 'cause otherwise you just don't WANT to see.
nobody's taking away your guns, jazz
Before laws are enacted to prevent sleezebags like Beck from encouraging hate and violence, somebody is going to do something so terrible and their excuse will be "Beck told me to do it". It's going to come down to just that before laws will have to be made to put a stop to this type of media madness. Humans are easily influenced especially by the media and these media hounddogs know very well what they are instigating.
That has already happened, as you might be aware.
The cretin who shot up that church and killed all those innocent people, had stated very specifically that he had wished to kill "all the liberals in Bernard Goldberg's book" (about the 100 liberal people who, in his personal opinion, had "screwed-up America").
It is a testament to the priorities of the mainstream media and their corporate owners and their DC brahmin cronies, that this little fact was made almost nonexistent, in favor of Breaking News about Michelle Obama's wearing sleveless dresses and improperly touching the Queen and planting a frickin' garden.
The two are absolutely interwoven. As long as planted Stupid Stories dominate the media real estate, people like us will never get to hear that mass murderers are on record as taking their marching orders directly from these fire-breathing RW media gasbags (unless we have the initiative to go looking for these stories, ourselves).
Call me wacky, but I should think blaming your mass murder spree, BY NAME, on Bernard Goldberg... is somewhat newsworthy, ya think? [crickets].
Dear Bob Cesca,
Aside from the fact that you're my FAVORITE blogger on Huffpo, I think I kinda disagree with you on whether or not these bobble heads should be fired. Don't you think they should? Isn't it obvious that within the context of their speech that they are fueling the fire leading to violence. I mean, they're doing exactly what the leaders of groups such as the Aryan Brotherhood do - they give people the political reasons to commit violent acts, the right amount of toxic anger, and point to the guns while, all while they have their hands casually in their own pockets. I'm not against free speech, but this is dangerous. And this danger isn't as far away as Afghanistan.
What they really need is to get sued back to the stone age by the families of recent shooting spree victims.
The bottom line will get them off the airwaves faster and more permanently than any kind of boycott or FCC doctrine ever will.
Don't slander laws in your country cover the sort of nonsense these people spout? Free speech is one thing but lying is another. eg: If a disaffected student of mine said, "Prof. Jamall's lectures are crap," then that would be fine. If s/he said, "Prof. Jamall's lectures contain anti-Asian/anti-European/anti-American racist dogma," however, then I would certainly challenge that student.
How can these so-called journalists get away with out and out lies?
In order to win a judgment in a slander or libel case, the plaintiff has to show by a preponderance of the evidence malice aforethought. Under the rules of evidence here, that is a very high bar to cross. 99.9% of judges in this country would rather err on the side of the First Amendment rather than risk being overturned on appeal. However, that doesn't mean those rants go unchallenged as you can see by Cesca's post here. Those of us in the "reality-based community" have a responsibility to take every opportunity to debunk these purveyors of crap.
The bar is even lower when slander when the target of the malicious remarks is a public figure. You have to show that the wrongdoer made a knowingly false statement of fact that caused harm. Opinions don't count. These wingnuts cherry pick their facts and voice opinions based on less-than-half-truths. An example is taking outrage over President Obama's statement on the need for more humility by US while ignoring his following remarks that anti-Americanism must also end. Similarly, berating the President because he said that the United States is not a Christian nation, while ignoring that he also said it is also neither Jewish nor Musilim. These are false issues. We need serious media reform in this country. To the extent the media creates false issues, either for ratings or for partisan political purposes, it is doing the country a disservice by denying the public access to vtial information to make decisions on issues that actually affect their lives.
They get away with saying these things because they are commentators not journalists and therefore not held to any jounalistic standards. Still one would wonder why they aren't held up to the law when they slander people with their lies ? Look at some of the things that Rush Limbaugh has said and done starting with his encouraging Republican's to fix the votes in the primaries so that Clinton won because they thought they had a better chance of winning the election against her rather than Obama ,and look at what he said about hoping Obama fails .These people are lower than low they are ruthless and lack all morals !
At the heart of the tragedy that is the MSM today is the total collapse of the line between the journalist and the commentator. I actually know people (on the right) who are flabbergasted that someone like Ann Coulter would not be cited in a serious study as would someone like David Brooks. They consider all of it to be "news" and believe every word, even if it contradicts something said by another commentator. Facts don't seem to enter in at all. I don't know if it is all entertainment to them or if it is just a case of intellectual laziness....or both.
The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in the late 80's began the slide toward the unfettered lies so pointedly noted here. The rise of a Rush Limbaugh, right-wing radio, and the commentator core coincides with the end of the Fairness Doctrine. In America, you have the right to say whatever you like (minus utterances that incite a riot or "Fire" when there is none) - but this is not so on the public airwaves. However, when the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, the airwaves became a lot more of a free-for-all and the right wing took full advantage and taught us all how to be divisive, inflammatory, purveyors of vicious innuendo and lies, and potentially dangerous to our culture. Howard Stern types also have taken advantage on the other side, the so-called shock-jocks, but freedom for the right is also freedom for the left. Before the Fairness Doctrine ended none of this occurred. The rules said that opinions on one side must be presented by opinions on the other. There were stricter constraints on what could be said on the public airwaves (owned by the public). We need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to stop all this hurtful, dangerous rhetoric from being sold as newsworthy !
99% of Americans do not understand what the Fairness Doctrine even WAS. If I told you that equal time must be given to a political candidate, when an opponent is given that same air time, would you think that would be "fair"?
Well, guess what? Doesn't matter what you think. Because it's still the law. "Equal time" and the "Fairness Doctrine" are two separate animals. The latter simply said that time (NOT "equal", even) must be afforded to those with varying opinions to express them, when one side is being presented exclusively by a broadcast outlet. That's IT.
And it had to go, in order to clear the way for the new Father Coughlins of the world (Rush, etc.). It is the height of naivete to say that the two events occurred independently of each other. This was a premeditated, well-funded and organized assault on the free flow of information, by Movement Conservatives. They will deny it. They are lying.
Problem is, there is now such an established business structure in right wing propaganda, that you can't put the genie back in the bottle anymore, re Fairness Doctrine. It's like trying to criminalize smoking... it kills people, but tough beans.
What's truly offensive is the way Democrats, progressives even, are quick to protest that oh, they never meant to being back the Fairness Doctrine! Heavens! We would NEVER think to do that to you! Please don't hurt us!
Pathetic.
Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly and limbaugh exist to entertain and inflame. They do that well. None of them has the intellect to think critically about anything at all. If they do, they hide it well.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
