Glenn Beck's recent successes in getting Van Jones to
leave the White House, a member of the National Endowment for the Arts
reassigned, and pushing ACORN out of next year's census are more
examples that the "right-wing noise
machine" is no more. It is now part and parcel of the mainstream media.
The convergence between alternative, conservative media and the "mainstream" media has been happening for years. I made the case before that the conservative media can force the press, which is a part of the MSM, to cover stories it may not otherwise give attention. One reader asked for such an example and now he has multiple ones with with the NEA, ACORN, and most prominently, Jones. Right-wing media not only put a target on Jones's back, but made it so large that the White House couldn't divert attention from it -- especially the press' attention, which finished him.
Beck was performing the basic mission of a reporter when he dug up parts of Jones's past because he brought undisclosed facts into the public record. To be sure he was not fair, objective, or disinterested in the outcome of that reporting, but it was reporting nonetheless.
"The reporting we saw on TV and on the Internet...was the work not of journalists, but of political hit men," wrote The Atlantic's Mark Bowden in the October issue about the very subject of people like Beck or the anti-ACORN activist acting like (and even replacing) journalists. They have "some of the skills and instincts of a reporter but not the motivation or ethics," Bowden said.
But every reporter needs a means of distributing their information far and wide, which is what Beck has with Fox and a support network of talk radio hosts and bloggers. This is what continues to make Sarah Palin newsworthy to the traditional press when she should probably not be. Palin no longer holds office, is not running for another office, and does not have more health care experience than any number of Republican office holders, current or former, as Marc Ambinder noted.
Yet she doesn't need any of those criteria to clear
the bar set to enter the mainstream media. Instead, the entry cost into
national news for Palin is lower because she can enter the mainstream
media through its right portal because its media are conservative and
she is popular among conservatives. The same could be said of the
protesters in Washington, D.C. who have not been aggrieved by the
government, but are simply disagreeing with it. In this way Fox, Rush
Limbaugh, and
the Drudge Report can elevate stories into the national discourse just
as CNN, NPR, and the New York Times can.
The convergence has been happening for years and its vanguard is Matt Drudge. In the beginning he was the Clintons' worst media nightmare, having jumpstarted coverage of the Monica Lewinsky affair and then feeding appetites for negative news about the Clintons. Years later Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and professional news organizations deliberately fed Drudge news. This is as stunning as the thought that Barney Frank and the Huffington Post may work with Glenn Beck.
The last several months have revealed a media that's fundamentally changed from the one America used to get its news from.
So, are you saying that Glenn Beck is equivalent to the NY Times or not? Are you saying that he has some dark motivations that exclude him from being categorized as 'journalist', as opposed to the average NY Times reporter. This seems silly, because understanding his mens rea is largely a hopeless task, and where you end up will largely be dictated by where you begin (i.e., by whether you agree or disagree with him politically), and so you've given up any hope of achieving an objective reality.
Let's look at two examples: Beck's recent pieces, which you refer to as hit pieces (it's unclear how showing video clips of people speaking in their own words constitutes a hit piece, but I'll accept your language for the sake of convenience), and the NY Times hit piece on McCain, where they profiled his relationship with the lobbyist Iseman, and implied that McCain had an affair with the woman.
In Beck's case, he used video clips of the people in question to show what they were saying in their own words; in the NY Times' case, they used unnamed sources and innuendo to push a blatantly false charge. Both are very likely motivated by their political outlooks. Beck wants to destroy the liberals, the NY Times wants to destroy the conservatives. So, how is one journalism, and one is not? And how is the one that presents false information to the public journalism, and the one that presents true information to the public not journalism? It's nonsensical, you see? Once you start defining journalism based on motivation you get into such a gray area that you can't make distinctions.
A better distinction for what is journalism would probably be based on whether the information conveyed is true or not. Of course, under this distinction, Beck would be journalism and the NY Times would not; so this is probably not a sufficient definition, as it seems more accurate to say that the NY Times is bad journalism.
Presumably, Jennis, you also find delight in reflecting on the "journalism" of Josef Goebbels about the Jews? Beck is not a journalist for one simple reason: he makes no attempt to provide the full range of facts, much less evidence. He's a propagandist who has been given an undeserved place at the media table, just like Karl Rove.
@nickzi - It is your motivation that we should regard with suspicion and your comment with disdain.
Jennis had a thought-provoking response to the article, complete with facts. Your response was an ad hominem attack, effectively calling him/her a Nazi.
Do you actually believe the MSM today is interested in providing the full range of facts? Really? That's laughable. The reason Beck is listened to and watched (along with Limbaugh, Hannity, and others) is that they do no. Beck simply has to fill the void the MSM conveniently leaves.
Aside from that, what he's doing now is more akin to investigative journalism (an established arena, in case you hadn't heard of it). He investigated Van Jones and reported what he found. The side-story is the question of why the MSM, for all their vaunted resources and so-called objectivity, failed to do so.
The proof is in the pudding. The MDM has abdicated their responsibility. To believe otherwise is to believe a clear lie - where is the MSM reporting on Van Jones? No where. Where is the MSM objectivity? No where. They report on anything resembling a conservative thought in this country with *suspicion*, labeling those who hold those beliefs as crackpots and astroturfers.
So, if reporting on the "other side" by way of ridicule and labels of racism and other defects is journalism, you're welcome to it.
The MSM have in many cases abandoned their responsibility - which is precisely why a demagogic neo-fascist like Beck can become mainstream, unchallenged by serious discussion of his motives and behavior. Let's remember here that Beck has raised every possible false allegation he can against the president, has attacked fellow Americans for party advantage, and has peddled a stream of innuendoes, secessionist memes and, in general, any piece of rancid neo-Confederate propaganda he can find. As for suggesting that he is in anyway a journalist, both you and Miller are taking leave of your senses. You do it because you find Beck congenial (which says something worrying about you), Miller does it to get the story without caring that he gives Beck's poisonous rantings yet more mainstream credibility. As for Jennis Psycho, her contributions her and on McArdle's appalling blog make clear that yes, we are dealing with someone who is, effectively, a Nazi. But as a good rightwinger, I assume you prefer to call her comrade.
Sounds like Beck hasn't done anything the MSM hasn't done. Let's remember here that the MSM (NYT, NBC, CBS, etc) has raised every possible false allegation it can against the president, has attacked fellow Americans for party advantage, and has peddled a stream of innuendoes, racist memes and, and in general, any piece of rancid neo-Marxist propaganda it can find.
Fascism is an Obamanation forcing everyone to goose step in a death march to government death panels - just like Hitler.
No, the reason Beck is becoming mainstream is completely misconstrued by nickzi. First, in order to be considered demagogic his power as a leader would have to be based on his arousing emotions, passions and prejudices. I have been a witness to the growth of Beck's audience. He has always been emotional, but what he generally influences with is film footage of complete, unedited admissions of his targets describing their beliefs and practices that don't square with what a broad swath of Americans agree with. He is a journalist. That's a simple one. When you pull together the evidence and lay it in the record for the audience to see for themselves, that is establishing the journal. nickzi is showing his bias and his lack of familiarity with Beck. Oh, and the 'neo-fascist' remark shows he doesn't have a grasp on the vocabulary he is using. I'll go ahead and credit his mischaracterization that way since the left obviously doesn't cotton to being called 'liars'
Years ago, when I still watched network news, I saw an extraordinary thing. Jane Pauley and Stone Phillips opened their NBC magazine show with an extended, detailed, thorough, and embarassing apology the General Motors. They were apologizing because their scoop a few weeks earlier, that certain models of GM light trucks were spectacularly unsafe, turned out to be a complete, utter hoax.
Last week, I watched as NBC's Tom Brokaw and the Time's Tom Friedman, on Meet The Press, lectured us villagers on the dangers of news that has not been adequately vetted by them. They were, of course, reacting to the exposure and resignation of Van Jones. Neither gentleman bothered to take issue with a single fact about Jones that Beck aired.
To hell with them.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200910/media
That's the link to the Bowden piece, by the way.
In recent days, there have been many comparisons of Glenn Beck to Joseph McCarthy. Beck has just as much arrogance and hubris that other tragic politicians such as McCarthy and Nixon had in their heydays. I can't help but think that Beck is setting himself up for a similar fall. I just don't know what and when that will be. History is littered with too many tragic figures that ruined themselves thinking they had more than they really did. I'm thinking the sooner this fall happens, the better off everyone else will be for it.
Of course accepting Beck and his cohorts into the MSM is giving up on any pretense that the media can help the citizenry distinguish facts from fiction. If that what happens, the press cannot be seen as providing a useful and legitimate service to society thus, just becoming an advocate for one side or the other.
I just don't understand, if that what the MSM has become, why so many of them still report both sides of the story (he said she said) even if there is really only one? They should just choose one side and damn the reality. Maybe all of scientists should quit and look for other jobs, if reality means so little?
For anyone to attempt definitions with regard to "Journalism" in this day and age is quite a hoot. The left see's their totalitarian media machine dying a painful death, and, like most liberals with an agenda based on control, dont enjoy seeing their empire(s) crumbling around them. I have said the machine shot itself in the foot pushing this creep (Obama) into office, and that truth is a fact it is now realizing it must accept. Truth id truth, no matter who delivers it. The fact that a public hungry for the truth in this age of lies is embracing Beck, while shunning the old standard of half truths based on a political agenda, should come as no surprise. And for those of you who actually believe Beck is into sensationalism, I say you need to lay off the bong. Beck is neither left nor right, he is, like the vast majority of American's, one more time, the VAST MAJORITY, of Americans, as in, actual citizens, simply tired of the obvious, blatant, and destructive course of disentegration of philisophies written down, then brought into law by the great men who shaped our form of governemnt initially. The left just happens to be far more flagrant. They have gotten comfortable controlling people with terms like "Politicaly Correct" and "Racist", and are now in a tizzy to see that Americans are beggining to push back. Groups like ACORN, and there are many others, are an abomination to the idea of democracy, and it took true journalism, and the MOXY of a true journalist with BIG BRASS ONES to finally deal them this fatal blow! Beck is old journalism at its finest, and I applaud him! He is, in a word, inspirational, one need only look at the numbers to see its true. Watch out you powermongers, and lazy SOB's, middle america is rising! The giant is waking ...
Yes, I am sure you regard civil rights and suffrage for women as tedious additions to the constitution. As for the Founders, they were mostly atheists/deists who would have been appalled to see the Republican link between bad religion and dishonest politics. Beck is a corrupt and vicious parasite, without integrity or character. The sooner this ranting neo-Nazi secessionist traitor is called out, the better the US will be.
Why would you manufacture those attributes about 'runester'? In fact, why would you manufacture those attributes about the Founders? Beck isn't a parasite, you're a liar. He's not a 'neo-Nazi and he's no form of traitor. I watch him closely and would love to hear your examples of where he has demonstrated any corruption. I don't buy it. List the ways he is corrupt. One by one. I call you out on that. I defy you to tell me where his integrity or his character has been less than exemplary. Name calling for the sake of name calling. Typical liberal emotional histrionics. You just sound bitter because someone has the cajones to PROVE how corrupt the left is. If you're in the mood to call names why don't you list the left from Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Rangel, Dodd, Kennedy, on down. Now that is a parade of anti-American, ungodly influence peddlers.
The neo-conservative movement in America almost mirrors exactly that of the Tory Socialist in England years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory_socialism
How about them apples? Beck trying to undermine the democrats for being socialist, when he infact himself would be considered a socialist by most intellectuals.
I will take your challenge on why Beck is corrupt with one answer.
Beck totally a misinterpreted that of Thomas Paine, and in doing so bescumbered all over his ideals when writing his befuddled excuse of a book entitled Common Sense. Beck is not an egalitarian, he believes his opinions on the economy are absolute(Paine said no opinions are absolute) and he is missed the entire point of the book.
Where's the "ethics" of these alleged journalists in refusing to vet a Communist presidential candidate!?
Where's the "investigative reporting" of these alleged journalists BEFORE Beck was tipped off we had racists, Communists and domestic terrorists appointed and otherwise working in OUR White House and writing legislation!?
Yet, you attempt to ridicule Beck for this insanity!?
Keep it up, official charges of treason are in your not to distant future.
Why would the MSM vet something they created? The MSM's job is to play hide the ball, so their golden boy is untarnished by reality. Without the MSM, Obama would be an absolute zero.
Name exactly one initiative Obama did not explicitly campaign on that he is now trying to enact?
Actually one thing Obama did campaign on was a promise of a new model of inclusionary and transparent politics which you don't have with all of his czars ..... until Glenn Beck exposes them.
Its late, so I will make this brief and say simply, transparency...
Its seems to be completely invisible!
"I was taught when I was a young reporter that it's news when we say it is. I think that's still true -- it's news when 'we' say it is. It's just who 'we' is has changed"
David Carr (b. 1956), US Journalist. CNN "Reliable Sources", Sunday, August 10, 2008.
I wonder if reaction to Glenn Beck would be the same if he still worked for CNN. I bet their kicking themselves in the ass wishing they had the balls to find out.
How soon you forget. People were calling for CNN to fire him. Hell, his ratings were crappy at CNN/HLN. Which is funny because CNN(ever since Time/Warner took it over), has been trying to out-Faux Faux.
My point, I guess not really made clear, CNN would not allow Glenn to do his job out of fear of not conforming to the GE doctrine, look where that's gotten them. The same folks calling for his ouster then are now hoping Mr. Obama's back door FCC Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd, will silence him, along with all conservative talkers, for good, before he himself has to resign at 12:01 Am some Sunday in the not so distant future.Please, wake up and smell the reality.
Rob R.:
Care to back up your resigning at 12:01 some Sunday morning nonsense? Or are you just another stupid Freeper?
My point, I guess not really made clear, CNN would not allow Glenn to do his job out of fear of not conforming to the GE doctrine, look where that's gotten them.
GE doctrine? GE owns NBC, not CNN. Time Warner(which used to be run by noted right-winger Dick Parsons) owns CNN. It's very funny how you think Beck was muzzled there. Because he wasn't.
I was referring to the middle of the night departure of Van Jones. I'll cop to the stupid part at times, but I don't know what a freeper is, please enlighten me. Why so angry?
I guess I screwed up again in my presentation, sorry. I mean Mr. Imelt ( probobly spelled wrong ) is part of Mr. Obama's inner circle and it seems to me anyway, to be giving the marching orders to liberal media outlets, most of the time. This was my reason for the GE reference. Hope that clears up my confusing former statement in your mind. This is only what I'm thinking, I'm not implying you must agree.
I wonder if Glenn Beck would be so vilified by the liberal media outlets, or if the un-american, sometimes illegal activities he uncovers were done while he worked for CNN. I bet they kick themselves in the ... everyday.
Which Un-American acts are those? And what liberal outfits?
I guess Van Jones refering to Chavez's way of taking over all media control from those bad land owners, ACORN openly explaining to the worst example of a pimp & prostitute I have ever seen, how to cheat the government of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, which by the way, is you and me. I'm a little afraid our new president and his shadow cabinet, may someday stop ordinary citizens like us from having these friendly chats. Call me crazy, but thats how I feel.
The liberal outlets, to which I refer, are unfortunately for the American public, everyone on TV, but Fox and maybe two newspapers part time. This should be alarming to everyone, not just right wingnuts like me. Debate is a great thing, there is really no right or wrong, it"s all just opinion based on the crcumstances of our lives. It also keeps us off the streets, this makes the world a much better place. Again, all that I write is just my opinion.
Well, here's a big round of applause to the Atlantic for contributing to lowering the the bar of public discourse.
Well The Atlantic had to provide a proof, and thus become a role model, for their own equation: "Glenn Beck = MSM".
However by doing that their argument becomes circular: They promote a behavioral theory for their own behavior (as representatives of the MSM). Not what rigorous scientists will appreciate.
Damn reality if we can help spin it our way...
Beck and other conservative pundits admit to an agenda whereas the MSM feigns objectivity. The public, increasingly, isn't buying the lie. Love him or hate him, Beck is honest about his agenda.
If the MSM were objective we would not have come an inch from keeping a 9/11 truther in the White House. (Yes, I know – he didn’t really know what the petition said; think that would fly if a Bush adviser had signed a petition on a racist web page?)
Can you show me the first Atlantic coverage of Jones after it was revealed he had signed the truther petition? It took Jones’ resignation to produce a shred of coverage in the so-called MSM even after that news broke.
MSM “journalism” is a worn fabrication. If the MSM would start doing its job even though a democrat is now in the White House, it could regain its credibility. Perhaps we could start a list of hard hitting investigative news stories by The Atlantic on the current administration?
A good start might also be spending a fraction of the MSM's resources on skeptically examining the administration leading this country as was expended by the MSM on Sarah Palin's family.
The question is not why Beck could get Jones fired, expose the highly disturbing NEA conference call (where, again, Beck used actually audio tape for proof of his claims along with a participant to the call), or expose that ACORN did not have institutional controls to prevent its employees from aiding a child prostitution ring in two separate offices.
The question is why it took Beck and those like him at all.
Haezed:
Did you even read the petition? Sounds like you didn't. Thanks for exposing yourself as a Beck fanboy though.
1. I did.
2. The rest of your argument is ad hominem, ignoring substance.
Start by going to 911truth.org and you will see that Van Jones easily should have known what kind of group he was supporting.
When the MSM does it's job, we won't need Beck. Until then, liberals can shut up about Fox and Beck.
I'm still waiting for the list of hard hitting investigative reports done by the MSM on the Obama administration. Can we start with the top 5?
You obviously did not. Because you obviously don't understand it. Then again, reading comprehension was/is never a strong suit of Glenn Beck fanboys.
2. The rest of your argument is ad hominem, ignoring substance.
You have no substance. That's the point. All you have is lies and, at best, smears.
So what you are saying is that Jones was not smart enough to understand or didn't bother to read the petition before signing it? Wow - if a conservative said that he would be accused of racism.
Nickzi,
Again plenty of personal insults, but what exactly is propagandistic about showing video of Van Jones?
By the way have you ever watched or listened to Beck for more that 5 minutes?
I hear so much about how awful Beck and Limbaugh are. Presumably, those who say so spend a lot of time listening to them, otherwise they could not condemn them so authoritatively.
Or maybe they are just following the party line out of either intellectual laziness, or worse, intellectual dishonesty. Anything in service of the Cause.
Rupert Murdoch is MSM. His NEWS CORP is one of the six biggest media conglomerates. (http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main)
Actually, in terms of money-making, NEWS CORPSE is more than double CBS, and has 27 US TV stations out of 120 stations worldwide.
So Glenn Beck is a mouthpiece for Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch was director of Phillip Morris Tobacco Company at a time where PM was convicted of racketeering. As a legally responsible director, Murdoch is an adjudicated racketeer of organized crime enterprises. His holdings in London led to three prison sentences for editors convicted of wiretapping over 3,000 celebrities and politicians, the same types of crimes which once toppled the Nixon racketeers.
Glenn Beck is a consigliere, a mouthpiece, for an organized crime empire, which itself is very much incorporated in the mainstream.
I can't believe real conservatives would be happy with calling Beck a conservative pundit. I don't recognize much that he says as based on conservative ideas. What he represents is the caricature of conservatism - the dumbed down version that appeals to the uneducated and ill informed. He knows what words to say to get these people riled up and that's what we're seeing in the country now. He's a showman and he knows that's all he is. Too bad his people don't realize it. Anyway, he damages the conservative brand because people who aren't one of his viewers are repulsed by what he represents. Real conservatives wish he would just go away. And the Beckites will never win an election so they'll go on being angry and malicious.
Haaaaaaaaaaaa, this is truly a knee slapper. Becky, REAL conservatism is something you wouldn't recognize from your vantage point immersed in the KoolAid. Beck doesn't really have to influence through his words. Although, his words are congruent with the other evidences he gives us access to. You see, I don't need Beck to tell me that a 'Black Nationalist' Communist who thinks our Government orchestrated 9-11 and thinks White America systematically pumps poison into communities of color and who wants to give America's wealth away to the people that he has identified as the disenfranchised shouldn't be in the White House advising our President on ANYTHING, let alone a sham facade of a Green Job Czar who merely uses that topic as a front for wrestling resources from those who earn them and redistributing them to those who don't. You see, Beck merely investigated and showed me the evidence. I saw the film. I looked Van Jones up independently AFTER Beck brought him to my attention. See, I don't buy what Beck or anyone else says. But I DO investigate when the weight of the evidence justifies it. That's how I know the New York Times is NOT a credible source of news. Nor is the L.A.Times. Nor CNN or ABC or CBS or NBC and no reasonable person believes a word that MSNBC says. That is a libelous pit of bitter nonsense. And its not because I don't like their spin or perspective. Nope. Its because time after time their bias has outweighed the facts AND when they've had solid news stories laid in their laps, they wouldn't even cover them. Or, if they did they buried them so deep in the paper, no one could find them.
Beck might be irritating in his emotional demeanor, but if you disregard what he is uncovering about what's happening in this country its either because you don't understand what this country is founded on or you don't like what this country is founded on.
I will say with the most indisputable conviction(at least in my mind) that Glenn Beck's book Common Sense is detrimental to the ideals of the founding fathers and most noticeably the ideals which Thomas Paine stood for.
Paine was the face of Egalitarianism of our founders and was very much so an atheist. Beck makes the assertion that he stands in favor of the proletariat and that this status affirms his right to his absolute conservative morals. Paine did not believe that his opinions were absolute.
"I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies another this right makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it."-Age of Reason, Thomas Paine
Our founders opinions were not absolute, no ones opinions are. So when Beck parades around selling snake oil to those who are to indisposed to reason, he becomes a slave to Paines ideals.
I understand what this country was founded on, but as Paine said, I am a slave to no ones opinion. The opinions of the founders were not absolute. The owning of slaves being an obvious reminder of that, but you know what? Paine was fine with being proven wrong, but you speak as if what he stood for was absolute.
Nothing is absolute, and Glenn Becks Common Sense may be common(selling out everywhere) but it is anything but sensible.
l can't believe how many of you Crazies are willing to read a reasonable publication like the atlantic. facts are: the msm sold out long ago to ratings and the 24 hr news cycle. glenn beck is no journalist, he is what he is self-described to be ''a clown''. there is no possibility of rational discourse with him. and to all you who admire his unabashed ''emotional displays'' on his program--its a farce. and to all you that throw around the words socialist, fascist and nazi so easily, l suggest you look the words up in the dictionary and you will find that obama is none of these. becky knows what's up. as does nickzi and a few others. anyone who thinks the msm is liberal and placed obama in the white house has obviously forgotten the lack of true investigative reporting that went on leading up to the Iraq war, a case in which the press was spoon fed the ''news'' by the bush administration unquestioningly--as well as anything else said by the bushies when his popularity was high. the game for the msm, and it is a game, is ratings first, survival second (when the ratings start to go down.) as long as someone is popular, the coverage is favorable. when their ratings start slipping, their coverage starts slipping, and so on--conservative or liberal. the only place true journalism exists anymore is on the internet, where ratings aren't THE issue. the msm proves its lack of journalistic integrity by always trying to pretend like they are showing ''both sides'' of the story, even when one side, like the birther movement or death panel reports are completely false, thereby giving some sort of legitimacy to stories that have none. as for beck, he's a proapagandist. he has no concern with facts, just proving his point, as with rush limbaugh (for proof of this see his recent reports on the ''harmlessness of DDT'', in which he cited 2 whole people, (and actually claimed it was safe ''to eat DDT'') to back up his theories versus decades of evidence to the contrary. If you believe glenn beck, then go start ladling DDT onto your meals, at a rate of 3 times the safe annual exposure per day, onto your meals. If all beck's fans start taking his advice and doing that, we won't have to worry about him being around for long, b/c all his fans will be buried deep in the cold cold ground very soon. and as far as his remarks that obama is a racist with a deep seated hatred for white people and white culture, then why on earth is obama, who IS HALF CAUCASIAN, always speaking so well of his white mother and grandmother who raised him, in a white culture, while ripping on his ol' black deadbeat dad? seriously, obama is one of the ''whitest'' black men ever to walk the earth, in color (yes, he has tan lines) and spirit. if you heard him speaking without seeing him or hearing his name, you would surely think that you were listening to a white politician and not jesse jackson or martin luther king jr. so for beck to call him a racist with a hatred of all things white, well, that just proves the fact that he is no journalist--he's an entertainer (to some), a self described clown ''who needs walls'' (l didn't quite get what he was talking about when he said the part about needing walls, unless he was refering to the all-white walls of an insane asylum.)
Although I am fairly sceptical of the MSM, from my recent TV viewing I find the MSM TV shows eg. Meet the Press and State of the Nation(CNN) are taking a tougher approach when asking questions to Administration officials and politicians of all stripes.
I believe that this is a reaction to some of the journalistic scoops from the likes of Beck or the internet sites. The "extreme" forces the "middle ground" to be a bit more objective.
Hunter S. Thompson was no saint, but he helped us see political reality at the time.
I've watched all those shows for years. They haven't changed. Tim Russert, for example, always gave every politician hell. If you think any real journalist does anything but laugh at Beck you are deluded. And Beck is no Hunter S. Thompson - not even in the ball park.
Never thought I'd see the Atlantic overrun by Beck's breathlessly bizarre legions.
The 9/12 website is probably the best primer for how utterly incoherent this "movement" is. National unity... via paranoid, vicious partisan rhetoric? Somehow, I don't seem to recall that on 9/12 except from a very tiny fringe on the left, and even that was so muted and ignored as to amount to nothing.
If Glenn Beck is a journalist, he is a pretty sloppy one. His technique requires no fact checking and he uses the words “may be”, “possibly” and “we don’t know” more than any other "news" figure on TV. Unfortunately, despite the many qualifications of his "facts", the conviction of his delivery is able to sell simple innuendo as the absolute truth. He did come up with some damning evidence about the temperament of Van Jones but what exactly is his ratio of facts to absolute c**p? If we are going to call anybody a journalist it should be based on the accuracy of his reporting not his market share.
Mike Burns
http://www.disorderlyreport.com/