Comments on: The Profound Danger of Glenn Beck

By: Jeffrey Jones

Jeffrey Jones — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:17:49 +0000

Well said, brother!

By: Derek Kompare

Derek Kompare — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:57:43 +0000

Great points, and it certainly is hypocrisy. I’m hopeful (long-term) that, in the name of free speech, such ridiculous limits will be revoked. Yesterday’s 8-1 USSC decision (on statutes banning animal cruelty images) is an interesting wrinkle to these developments that may lead to more challenges of content restrictions.

By: Jonathan Gray

Jonathan Gray — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:21:07 +0000

well, let me be the evil monarchist subject here and put in a word for banning hate speech. The American myth of free speech is insultingly hypocritical — the US bans all sorts of speech regularly that is way less objectionable than Beck. How many people were damaged by seeing Janet Jackson’s breast, or how many would be truly damaged if they heard Sawyer tell Jack to “fuck off” in Lost? Yet the FCC throws a fit over those issues, while an environment of pervasive hate speech goes on at Fox News. Indeed, if the Jackson incident was dangerous, it was because of the violence against women, another issue that’s wholly acceptable to the FCC while they instead focus their efforts on making sure that the correct synonym for “asshole” is used.

In other words, we’ve already accepted as a society that limiting speech that is dangerous is entirely acceptable. We just waste our efforts on policing Benny Hill behavior when what truly is dangerous is Beck behavior.

By: Jeffrey Jones

Jeffrey Jones — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:48:29 +0000

I just couldn’t agree more with your paragraph here:
“The failure of the rest of the news media to take on Fox News is, perhaps, the most shameful part of this story. While it’s vital to have people like Colbert, Stewart, and lefty media critics keep the case going against the hate-mongers, without a more centrist critique, it can only carry limited weight. I honestly believe the major news organizations simply lack the moral courage to do it, which is tragic.”

It funny–political scientists and political communication scholars argue that our current TV news situation is a return to the partisan press of the late-nineteenth century. Where that analogy goes wrong is the failure to recognize that Hearst and Pulitizer pummeled each other. Well into the twentieth century, cross-town papers used to take each other on for lies and distortions. Where is that today? I guess we could point to the opinion folks on these networks shouting at each other (Olbermann versus O’Reilly). But that oh so easily just falls into the bifurcated, two party, both sides argument, and we all just wash our hands of it. No!

By: Derek Kompare

Derek Kompare — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:24:13 +0000

It really is striking, isn’t it? One tiny misstatement was enough for ABC to immediately fire Maher back in 2001. One mild statement of disagreement was enough for the crazies to make bonfires out of Dixie Chicks CDs in 2003. Yet day after day after day of not only hate but utter bulls*it is mildly tutted. When it is called into question (as President Clinton did the other day), it’s the critics that take the most heat.

While I agree that we can’t and shouldn’t ban such speech outright, we absolutely should point out its dangers. The failure of the rest of the news media to take on Fox News is, perhaps, the most shameful part of this story. While it’s vital to have people like Colbert, Stewart, and lefty media critics keep the case going against the hate-mongers, without a more centrist critique, it can only carry limited weight. I honestly believe the major news organizations simply lack the moral courage to do it, which is tragic.

However, even if they were, Fox News could just double down on the whole “liberal media” meme, and render all the non Kool-Aid drinkers as the enemy. The whole right wing is going further and further down that path all the time. The good news is it only further isolates them from mainstream American society. The bad news is that they’re not going to willingly abandon that path, and the rhetoric and events will likely continue to get worse.

We need to study how the likes of Coughlin, McCarthy, and Morton Downey (remember him?) were ultimately taken down, and learn from history. Unfortunately, I fear that the roots and spread of the current hate organs will prove too much to eradicate peacefully this time.

By: Jeffrey Jones

Jeffrey Jones — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:34:36 +0000

Point taken (Maher), but/and by that logic, CNN is then to blame for giving Beck a TV show, knowing what he was doing all along on his radio show. The begats may be important (not sure), but the larger point here (in your response and in my post) does regard hate speech. I’ve never been a proponent of outlawing it, but again, that isn’t the issue either. For me, it revolves around the social responsibility of media (Fox) and the moral response that we as a community have to such speech. We’ve seen how quickly offensive speech can be shut down in America when the full weight and force of the community comes down on that which is deemed offensive or dangerous (Imus is but one of hundreds of examples). My question is why is that not happening now? Under what conditions will that occur? You make a good point about Coulter in that regard as well. I fully believe that if Obama were to be shot and/or killed, that Fox News would NOT remove Beck and Hannity from the air, perhaps not even when we arrived at the studios with pitch forks in hand.

By: Jonathan Gray

Jonathan Gray — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 05:05:26 +0000

You may not like this, Jeff, but I partly blame Bill Maher. He made the original deal with the devil when he kept bringing Ann Coulter onto his show, and in doing so implied that her statements were simply another point of view. Sure, at least he shouted them down, but he then laughed his shouts off. As warnings from the University of Ottawa administration prior to her recent proposed visit to speak there made clear, though, she regularly engages in out and out hate speech, something that’s criminal in many countries. So Coulter begets Beck and now he does the same thing

By: Jeffrey Jones

Jeffrey Jones — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:23:47 +0000

East German, but yeah, your last sentence/question is an important one. Beck the performer takes this to a level that Rush was never willing to go. Like Rush, he proclaims himself just an “entertainer” who doesn’t care about politics (or at least that is what Rush said when he broke on the scene two decades ago). But Beck tries to protect himself by donning the clown images his critics make him out to be. Of course, that is smart on his part, and gives his audience an “out” as well.

By: Geoffrey Baym

Geoffrey Baym — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:39:57 +0000

I like your point that Beck “animates” his imaginary fascist communist dictator. Throughout the Bush years, the right accused the left of adopting its own tactics (Bush, for example, accused John Kerry of trying to use fear to win votes). But Beck seems to take it even further. Thus the picture of him in the Nazi-esque uniform on his book cover. Is that satire or self-reflexivity?