Beck attacks Jane Hall: "idiot that left Fox ... Don't let the door hit you on the ass when you leave"
October 26, 2009 10:34 am ET
From the October 26 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
I knew when Jane Hall said what she said that Beck would respond accordingly.
Thanks for proving her point Glenn.
Speaking the truth? You mean like about the six months spent in jail by convicted felon Van Jones? Oops. Neither of those things was the truth, was it, Glenn?
Pointing out facts? You mean the other day, when you were talking about how we've lost freedom of speech because of the fairness doctrine? That the senate voted down even though the FCC wasn't thinking about re-implementing it? That President Obama himself opposes? No truth and no facts. Let's see how the simple questions go.
Simple questions? "Can we stop mentioning Mao in speeches?" on October 22, followed on the 23rd by "There's not enough Maoists," in response to a caller talking about a recent Rasmussen poll. So, I guess your simple question is an epic fail as well.
You're consistent at least, Mr. Beck. Three for three failures.
As a side note, I'm really quite confused how requiring broadcasters to provide a platform to opposing views in order to offer opposing points of view qualifies as a LIMITATION of free speech. Seems to me like it's the complete opposite. Actually, if the "Mainstream Media" is as biased as they claim it to be, you'd think they'd be all for having their points of views presented by those outlets.
Oh, wait. Unless they consider Free Speech to be their right to spread lies without having to look foolish when they are called upon to answer for them... I can see where they might not quite like that.
Hmm. Now that I think about it, that will limit their ability to exercise their "Free Speech" on a national level. They are likely to lose their jobs and have their money trains derailed.
Someone needs to remind them that, while you have the right to say whatever bit of idiocy that might work its way to your mouth, you do not have a right to a platform or a right to be heard.
No particular individual has a right to a platform or to be heard. In a nation built upon debate, however, the people themselves have both a right and a responsibility to hear conflicting points of view on the issues at hand. An organization which presents those points of view has a responsibility to present them in the best manner possible without an obvious bias towards one side of the debate or another.
A refusal to do that denies us, the viewers, readers, and listeners, that which is ours by right.
Also, Glenn - nice link from Jane Hall to the (Nazi) book burning meme juxtaposed with the "scary" Founding Fathers. It was smart of you to answer her response in measured language and tone that did not prove her point about you. Way to go, Glenn!
A minute or so into the clip, Beck says "Since when did language become scary?"
Is he frickin' kidding?
This is his shtick! Beck uses clipped and/or distorted transcripts, audio and/or video (a.k.a.: language) to form the heart of his verbal assaults (a.k.a.: language).
And then, he goes on to give a small taste of just how frickin' scary he can get.
One of the few programs I tried to watch on FOX NEWS included Jane Hall because she was one of the very few that sounded like they knew what an actual journalist was and how they should act.
The actual journalism practiced at FOX NEWS just dropped by about twenty-five percent.
Or fifty.
How about shouting F-I-R-E in a movie theatre, YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!
Beck wants somebody in the White House or the media to respond to his 'BLACKBOARD LUNACY' proof of marxism . .
If no one responds, it means w-h-a-t?
It means that you are irrelevant . .
You've gotta have credibility before you can seriously expect people to respond to your claims.
(If Obama is Al Capone, Beck must be Bugsy Siegel.)
Just stating a simple fact here, Glenn.
And it's just crying out to be sandwiched between a couple of size twelves.
LA Times: Fox News relishes Obama administration scorn
Surely the 80 sponsors who fled Beck's show will now realize they need his "Obama is a white-hating racist" demographic.
Or you just know all these things?
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/22/cable-news-ratings-for-wednesday-october-21-2009/31248#more-31248
As for the rest of my OPINION, it is based upon logic. Less than 1% of the American population watch Fox prime-time. Any increase, which was not that great, was most likely curiosity. Sane, intelligent people are usually turned off rather quickly by insane, hyperbolic rhetoric.
Try watching something besides Fox. I'm sure you believe that by watching Fox that makes you a "conservative"; however, most real conservatives avoid Fox like the plague. It's not news and the opinion voiced there has NO semblance to conservatism whatsoever.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
You think 'conservatives' watch MSNBC or CNN? Or don't watch TV at all. We watch everything. That'swhy this whole is so ridiculous. It's condescending to all Americans that Obama and his comrades think people get all their news from one place and believe everything they hear.
What you said is the ridiculous equivalent of me saying you probably get all your news from Media Matters.
3 million FoxNews viewers per any polling method.
Less than 1%.
This isn't rocket science.
Fox’s programs have drawn record numbers of viewers this year. Through last week, Fox averaged 1.2 million viewers at any given time this year, up from one million viewers through the same time last year. Previously, the channel peaked in 2003, the year the Iraq war started, with nearly 1.1 million viewers.
Mr. Beck, whose 5 p.m. program consistently draws three million viewers, is a “cultural phenomenon now,” Mr. Shine said.
There are over 300 million people in the U.S. Approximately 2.5 million people watch Fox prime-time on a daily basis. That would be "less than 1% of the American population watch Fox prime-time." Understand?
Dolly and bintx, you're correct -- it isn't rocket science, it's basic math.
Unfortunately, explaining basic math to wingnuts is virtually impossible: remember, these are the same people who believed the 20% who were die-hard Bush supporters constituted a majority . . .
I regularly watch (record) NUMB3RS, and never ran into any math that would vaguely resemble O'Reilly's.
It's called "wingnut math", JP. The same math Uncle KKKarl Rove put forth during the '06 midterms . . .
I'll repeat . . . get your news from a news source. Forget the opinion networks.
Or do we have a new wingnut posting here for the sole purpose of defending cheesy propagandists and to pimp Faux News Channel's rating?
Really, after listening to the hatred of Beck and Hannity, do you think they will be converts.
FOX is now expected to tell the truth if the expect to stay in the same league as the so-called MSM.
I mean, there were the bailouts, but most can agree why those were necessary. Then the stimulus, which again, most can agree why that was necessary. And then socialized medicine. Which will end up being the "public option" - a far, far cry from "socialized medicine".
Or, invite them all to the white-house for a dinner.
Anyone see Beck's show after he got back from visiting with Bush at the white house?
Obama needs to be the bigger man.
P.S. Had a talk with some of my family this past weekend. The southern oil wealth LOVES GB. And Fox. There's unimaginable money behind fox. it's not going away anytime soon.. and it's not going to change its stance.
Obama's already been on The OhReally Factor -- plus, if he appeared again, the same thing would happen that happened last time: the interview would be cut up and re-edited to make Obama appear weak . . .
CNN upon Beck's departure:
Jokers.
First, it is a complete cop out to justify any programming or commentary on the basis that it simply represents freedom of speech or expression. This is the excuse most often used by those who have no real interest in open, thought-provoking dialogue. Be wary as soon as the term "freedom of speech" is invoked in any conversation.
Second, other "professional" organizations such as doctors, pharmacists, and even lawyers, have a code of conduct which governs their behavior. Unfortunately in the media, no such code of conduct exists. Instead, all that is "fit to print" is lumped into either the excuse that it's just freedom of speech, or that because people are willing to pay for it, read it, or watch it, there exists a genuine market that should be exploited. Be wary of any supposed news organization that relies on those justifications to say whatever they want.
At one time, when journalistic ethics had some meaning, we had Woodward and Bernstein using their investigative skills to expose corruption or injustice. Today we have Glenn Beck going on in what often seem like incomprehensible rants, and we call that news. Wow!