Glenn Beck and the rise of Fox News' militia media

**rb336** · April-13-09, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by d.mcc

CC...have YOU ever looked up the definitions of Facism? Considering Facism is a right-wing socio-political slant:

I've linked and posted Il Duce's definition of fascism a few times. Bats, as has been shown ad nauseum, cares little for facts

**Detroitej72** · April-13-09, 06:11 PM

quote:Sorry Dr. Weiss...those fortune cookie generalizations do not suffice as a definition.

Read Jonah Goldberg's book folks.

Read Al Franken's book folks.

**Detroitej72** · April-13-09, 06:16 PM

Back to the topic.

Anyone on FauxNews who spews this Anti-American shit and encourages the killing of our president should be jailed immediately. Furthermore, spreading this vicious hate should be silenced. This is the best evidence why congress should reinstate the Fairness Doctrine to balance out the lies and silence the fanatics who wish to kill innocent people.

**ejames01** · April-13-09, 07:21 PM

The Glenn Beck show is CRAZY! Anyone that takes him seriously, definitely needs their head examined. I've watched 3 shows and I am shocked by all of the nonsense that he is spewing and the crazy stunts that they do is even more bizarre.

**Detroitej72** · April-13-09, 08:36 PM

The man seems to be mentally ill, truth be told.
The fact that some folks take him seriously is a scary sign of the times.

**Bobl** · April-13-09, 08:50 PM

Somebody, quick, buy him a drink!
And while we're at it, let's be sure Rush has a good supply of oxy....
Might calm them down a bit, poor souls.

ccbatson · April-13-09, 10:47 PM

I agree that he is often way out there. However, when he is on target, he is brilliant and very compelling.

ccbatson · April-13-09, 10:51 PM

No..he is not as far out as the unabomber.

ccbatson · April-13-09, 11:01 PM

Innocent until proven guilty. Until then, your analogy is way off.

**oladub** · April-13-09, 11:34 PM

BREAKOUT MOMENT!!!

In post #38 above, Detroitej72 proposes censorship by advocating the reenstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. A few of you have been beating around the bush about this for days but now you have a leader. What next, book burnings?

**rb336** · April-14-09, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

BREAKOUT MOMENT!!!

In post #38 above, Detroitej72 proposes censorship by advocating the reenstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. A few of you have been beating around the bush about this for days but now you have a leader. What next, book burnings?

The fairness doctrine is NOT censorship. they are OUR airwaves, and they are currently being censored by the extreme right-wing ownership of those airwaves. In cities where progressive radio is allowed on decent sticks, they do quite well. In cities like Detroit, where nearly 1/3 of the stations are owned by one right-wing corporation, they are relegated to the weak signals of 1310.

**oladub** · April-14-09, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by rb336

The fairness doctrine is NOT censorship. they are OUR airwaves, and they are currently being censored by the extreme right-wing ownership of those airwaves. In cities where progressive radio is allowed on decent sticks, they do quite well. In cities like Detroit, where nearly 1/3 of the stations are owned by one right-wing corporation, they are relegated to the weak signals of 1310.

From the First Amendment, "Congress shall make NO law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...

The Fairness Doctrine is a law abridging the freedom of speech. It allows some people to determine what others are allowed to say and/or what also must be said to satisfy their sense of balance. Welcome to the bookburners' club Rb. You outed yourself.

If they are "OUR airwaves", then they are already regulated by the First Amendment and your personal preferences for censorship are not an option. If you want balance, then go out and buy your own radio station. Noone is forcing any one of us to listen to either Rush, Air America, religious broadcasts, or public broadcasting concertos and no censors should force any of those programs to have to spend a minute of their time broadcasting the censors preferences. That's what dials are for.

**Detroitej72** · April-14-09, 07:09 PM

Newsflash: the fairness doctrine is not about censorship at all, simply a means to get both view points known. I know its hard for you neo-cons to grasp that concept, since your gods of right-wing radio prech to you that its evil, but try using some simple logic of your own for once.

There is nothing wrong with giving listeners both sides to an argument and then letting them make up their own mind. Right-wing radio knows this would cause them to be expossed as the frauds they are, and that is why the Fairness Doctrine causes them to frauth at the mouth and have violent convoltions.

ccbatson · April-14-09, 07:39 PM

If you believe that it is about fairness, then you have been effectively brainwashed by the Statists [[in this case, Democrat and Republican) into willingly allowing your freedom [[constitutional freedom, via the bill of rights) to be taken away from you.

**rb336** · April-15-09, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

If you believe that it is about fairness, then you have been effectively brainwashed by the Statists [[in this case, Democrat and Republican) into willingly allowing your freedom [[constitutional freedom, via the bill of rights) to be taken away from you.

there goes bats talking about everyone else being brainwashed whilst using the language of his cult

**Detroitej72** · April-15-09, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

If you believe that it is about fairness, then you have been effectively brainwashed by the Statists [[in this case, Democrat and Republican) into willingly allowing your freedom [[constitutional freedom, via the bill of rights) to be taken away from you.

If you believe that it is not about fairness, then you have been effectively brainwashed by the Cultists, [[in this case the Randian Cult) into buying the false notion of a free market.

There can never be a completly free market, since those who run it are not honest enough to police themselves, hense you need some form of regulation.

**oladub** · April-15-09, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Newsflash: the fairness doctrine is not about censorship at all, simply a means to get both view points known. I know its hard for you neo-cons to grasp that concept, since your gods of right-wing radio prech to you that its evil, but try using some simple logic of your own for once.

There is nothing wrong with giving listeners both sides to an argument and then letting them make up their own mind. Right-wing radio knows this would cause them to be expossed as the frauds they are, and that is why the Fairness Doctrine causes them to frauth at the mouth and have violent convoltions.

"Both"? If you think there are only two points of view you have already disqualified yourself from deciding content. The rest of your first paragraph was also in error. My primary radio station is Public Radio. I have listened to about a half hour of Rush in the last year. I am not a neo-con because I disapprove of expanded wiretapping, broadening the war in Afghanistan, expanded government debt and spending, and the Fed among other things. I wouldn't even consider voting for anyone who supported those neo-con policies. You are now 0 for 3 and maybe 0 for 4 if you voted for someone who supported those neo-con policies.

Your desire to force feed your message reminds me of how China, in Maoist days, had loudspeakers blasting propaganda all over every city to make sue everyone got the Party's message. Is your message so crappy that you have to resort to the same techniques? I suspect it is. Do you intend to let the other side of 'both' get to choose who they want to occupy half of the Maddox, Olberman, Colbert show? I mean how does this work. Do Maddox and Limbaugh alternate days on each others' shows or does each do half of each other's program? In either case, how do you prevent people from turning off their radio or TV when the interloper comes on? Help me understand how your post 1st Amendment world is supposed to operate.

**Detroitej72** · April-16-09, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

"Both"? If you think there are only two points of view you have already disqualified yourself from deciding content. The rest of your first paragraph was also in error. My primary radio station is Public Radio. I have listened to about a half hour of Rush in the last year. I am not a neo-con because I disapprove of expanded wiretapping, broadening the war in Afghanistan, expanded government debt and spending, and the Fed among other things. I wouldn't even consider voting for anyone who supported those neo-con policies. You are now 0 for 3 and maybe 0 for 4 if you voted for someone who supported those neo-con policies.

Your desire to force feed your message reminds me of how China, in Maoist days, had loudspeakers blasting propaganda all over every city to make sue everyone got the Party's message. Is your message so crappy that you have to resort to the same techniques? I suspect it is. Do you intend to let the other side of 'both' get to choose who they want to occupy half of the Maddox, Olberman, Colbert show? I mean how does this work. Do Maddox and Limbaugh alternate days on each others' shows or does each do half of each other's program? In either case, how do you prevent people from turning off their radio or TV when the interloper comes on? Help me understand how your post 1st Amendment world is supposed to operate.

Let me try to clear up a few things. First, thank you for pointing out my error in saying "both". I should have said "all points of view". Keeping things simple was what I was trying to do.

Second, when I said neo-cons, I wasn't singling you out, just all that naysayers in general. I'm glad you listen to NPR, but if thats your main source, you would know that the Fairness Doctrine is not about censorship. The only place I've heard that term thrown around is on right-wing radio and Fox News.

Third, how am I force-feeding my message? Because you may not agree with it, you think its force feed? I simply speak my stated point of view after gaining all the facts from multiple sources, including NPR, pogressive radio, CNN, MSNBC, and even right-wing radio. How you equate that to Marxist China is unclear to me. One could take your argument on "blaring propaganda" to mean AM right wing talk radio, that, as we both know has a monopoly of the airwaves.

As for TV news, we have a pretty good balance of right vs. left with Fox and MSNBC, so that really isn't an issue now is it. If you want straight news with no bias, you can watch CNN, C-Span and the like.

The main problem I see is on AM radio, where the right-leaning media conglomerates pretty much control the air waves. Pogressive talk, for the most part is limited to weaker signals in the few areas where you can actually hear it, with some exceptions, like in Chicago.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

**ejames01** · April-16-09, 07:37 PM

Have you even seen the Glenn Beck show? It is a riot.

**ghettopalmetto** · April-16-09, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitRoch

Judging by the title of this thread it is clear as heaven that Mr. Beck is causing quite a stir to the left.
So much so that it has set them into a feeding frenzy to try to discredit him.

To discredit Glenn Beck requires that he has credibility in the first place. Remind me what his credentials are again?

**ejames01** · April-16-09, 07:44 PM

Are you serious?

**ghettopalmetto** · April-16-09, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitRoch

Well for starters, he has a nationally syndicated radio and television show. I think thats creditionals enough.

next?

And Britney Spears has an international recording contract, which allows her to be seen and heard more than Glenn Beck. Does that make her a political genius [[or even a good musician)?

**ghettopalmetto** · April-16-09, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitRoch

He is a commentator Ghetto palm tree, not a reporter, nor a political anything and he just like the propagation zoo over on msnbc is allowed to speak. Albeit he does it with a fair amount of truth whereas the other white meat do it whilst lying through their hideous holes with every waking moment of every smelly breath.

So Glenn Beck is a commentator, which means he gets on the radio and the television, and spouts his opinion. Having the ability to spew one's opinion does not lend credibility. I can rant and rave forever about particle physics, but it would be hard to take seriously, since I would just be providing my opinions the entire time. Would you agree?

What is your basis for deciding that Glenn Beck speaks the truth? Against which objective bases have you compared his commentary?

Sorry to hear that your Smellevision isn't working out so well for you when you decide to watch "the other white meat" [[my, how clever you are!). There is such a thing as technology going too far, you know.

**ghettopalmetto** · April-16-09, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitRoch

I didnt say his opinions were truth. His opinions are based on the truth wheras Piss[[oh I get a tingle down my leg when that black hunk speaks) Matthews ,Keith [[pussface)ogreman ,Rachael Cow and crew outright lie about anything and everything.

To know that Glenn Beck's opinions are based on the truth, one needs to know what the truth is in the first place. So, I'll raise my question again: how do you know what the objective truth is? Surely, you have some way of deciding what constitutes truth in order to reach such a conclusion.

**Detroitej72** · April-16-09, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitRoch

I didnt say his opinions were truth. His opinions are based on the truth wheras Piss[[oh I get a tingle down my leg when that black hunk speaks) Matthews ,Keith [[pussface)ogreman ,Rachael Cow and crew outright lie about anything and everything.

Its funny that you lable MSNBC as a propaganda machine, while completely ignoring that Fox is the same thing, except with the oposite view point.

Then, to show your bias, you proceed to call their comentators names. This causes others to dismiss your rants as purly partisian weeping.

Finally, one could argue that any of MSNBC's personalities views are based on facts as well as you claim Beck's views are.

If you want "fair and balanced" news, tune into CNN, C-Span or even NPR. Otherwise you can watch the left and right put their spins on Fox and MSNBC.