why the left hates glen beck

[Coyote]

Still bashing Beck? Keep up the good work!

Fox News has pulled off another dominant quarter, claiming the top 10 cable news programs in 3Q 2009 and growing against 3Q 2008, while CNN and MSNBC lost substantial portions of their election-boom audience.

Fox News averaged 2.25 million total viewers in prime time for the third quarter, up 2% over the previous year. That's more than CNN (946,000, down 30%) and MSNBC (788,000, down 10%) combined.

"The O'Reilly Factor" led all cable news programs with an average of 3.295 million total viewers for the quarter, up 12% over the previous year. "Hannity" (2.603 million, up 9%), "Glenn Beck" (2.403 million, up 89%), "On the Record with Greta van Susteren" (2.150 million, up 16%), and "Special Report with Bret Baier" (1.997 million, up 20%) rounded out the top five.

Read more at: Fox News Dominates 3Q 2009 Cable News Ratings

I am not sure that means anything...other than what it says about the audiences in light of the below....


Pew Center for Excellance in Journalism had some interesting data in their 2009 State of the Media Report:

 

[nodoginnafight]

Coyote: That's some very interesting results. Looks like an across the board erosion of confidence except for NPR.

And pretty low ratings for Fox and the highest overall confidence in CNN.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote: That's some very interesting results. Looks like an across the board erosion of confidence except for NPR.

And pretty low ratings for Fox and the highest overall confidence in CNN.

It's an interesting site - they do quite a lot of analysis of trends. One of the things that they also noted about cable in 2009 was:

In a big news year, most media continued to see audiences shrink.

Only two platforms clearly grew: the Internet, where the gains seemed more structural, and cable, where they were more event-specific.

The data also suggest a clear trend in the changing nature of how Americans now learn about the world around them. People are relying more heavily — both during peak moments and in general — on platforms that can deliver news when audiences want it rather than at appointed times, a sign of a growing “on demand” news culture. People increasingly want the news they want when they want it.

* Much of that traffic, moreover, went to the biggest Internet sites, many of them offering news primarily from wire services or aggregated from legacy media outlets. The top 50 news websites saw traffic for the year grow 27%, according to PEJ’s analysis of comScore data, while all news and information sites grew 7%. The top four news sites —Yahoo, MSNBC.com, CNN.com and AOL—saw unique visitors grow 22% to 23.6 million visitors a month. That was twice the rate of increase of 2007 and more than five times the rate in 2006.

* The gains in cable, which generated even greater publicity, were more ephemeral. For 2008, the average monthly audience of the three major news channels throughout the day and evening grew by 38%, to a new high of 2.2 million. But after the election, the audience began to drift away. A bump in early 2009, though, brought the average back up slightly, and in February, prime-time audiences were running 5% ahead of the corresponding month of 2008.

 

[Wicked Jester]

The left also hates Beck for exposing liars like ol' Al Gore:
Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Glenn Beck: Al Gore on courts in England

 

[nodoginnafight]

Coyote: That's some very interesting results. Looks like an across the board erosion of confidence except for NPR.

And pretty low ratings for Fox and the highest overall confidence in CNN.

It's an interesting site - they do quite a lot of analysis of trends. One of the things that they also noted about cable in 2009 was:

In a big news year, most media continued to see audiences shrink.

Only two platforms clearly grew: the Internet, where the gains seemed more structural, and cable, where they were more event-specific.

The data also suggest a clear trend in the changing nature of how Americans now learn about the world around them. People are relying more heavily — both during peak moments and in general — on platforms that can deliver news when audiences want it rather than at appointed times, a sign of a growing “on demand” news culture. People increasingly want the news they want when they want it.

* Much of that traffic, moreover, went to the biggest Internet sites, many of them offering news primarily from wire services or aggregated from legacy media outlets. The top 50 news websites saw traffic for the year grow 27%, according to PEJ’s analysis of comScore data, while all news and information sites grew 7%. The top four news sites —Yahoo, MSNBC.com, CNN.com and AOL—saw unique visitors grow 22% to 23.6 million visitors a month. That was twice the rate of increase of 2007 and more than five times the rate in 2006.

* The gains in cable, which generated even greater publicity, were more ephemeral. For 2008, the average monthly audience of the three major news channels throughout the day and evening grew by 38%, to a new high of 2.2 million. But after the election, the audience began to drift away. A bump in early 2009, though, brought the average back up slightly, and in February, prime-time audiences were running 5% ahead of the corresponding month of 2008.

When I look at the big picture, I think the findings support the idea that the "information age" is quickly turning into the "disinformation age."

I think people are finding it all to easy to wrap themselves into a cocoon of "information" that is delivered only by outlets whose bias mirrors their own. We've traded detached, objective journalism from three or four sources for highly partisan, spinning by hundreds of sources.

IMHO it is a shame. And, imho, Fox news is leading the parade and a perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in America. But other outlets may only be marginally better.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Coyote: That's some very interesting results. Looks like an across the board erosion of confidence except for NPR.

And pretty low ratings for Fox and the highest overall confidence in CNN.

It's an interesting site - they do quite a lot of analysis of trends. One of the things that they also noted about cable in 2009 was:

In a big news year, most media continued to see audiences shrink.

Only two platforms clearly grew: the Internet, where the gains seemed more structural, and cable, where they were more event-specific.

The data also suggest a clear trend in the changing nature of how Americans now learn about the world around them. People are relying more heavily — both during peak moments and in general — on platforms that can deliver news when audiences want it rather than at appointed times, a sign of a growing “on demand” news culture. People increasingly want the news they want when they want it.

* Much of that traffic, moreover, went to the biggest Internet sites, many of them offering news primarily from wire services or aggregated from legacy media outlets. The top 50 news websites saw traffic for the year grow 27%, according to PEJ’s analysis of comScore data, while all news and information sites grew 7%. The top four news sites —Yahoo, MSNBC.com, CNN.com and AOL—saw unique visitors grow 22% to 23.6 million visitors a month. That was twice the rate of increase of 2007 and more than five times the rate in 2006.

* The gains in cable, which generated even greater publicity, were more ephemeral. For 2008, the average monthly audience of the three major news channels throughout the day and evening grew by 38%, to a new high of 2.2 million. But after the election, the audience began to drift away. A bump in early 2009, though, brought the average back up slightly, and in February, prime-time audiences were running 5% ahead of the corresponding month of 2008.

When I look at the big picture, I think the findings support the idea that the "information age" is quickly turning into the "disinformation age."

I think people are finding it all to easy to wrap themselves into a cocoon of "information" that is delivered only by outlets whose bias mirrors their own. We've traded detached, objective journalism from three or four sources for highly partisan, spinning by hundreds of sources.

IMHO it is a shame. And, imho, Fox news is leading the parade and a perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in America. But other outlets may only be marginally better.

No, you're just pissed because FOX news isn't drinking the Obama Kool-aid.

Just admit it. They took down your fellow commie bastard Van Jones, along with a few other complete scumbags that you so disgustingly love and admire. And they're not going to let up. Get used too it. The hammering of this sham president and his administration has only just begun. And RIGHTFULLY so!

 

[California Girl]

It's an interesting site - they do quite a lot of analysis of trends. One of the things that they also noted about cable in 2009 was:

When I look at the big picture, I think the findings support the idea that the "information age" is quickly turning into the "disinformation age."

I think people are finding it all to easy to wrap themselves into a cocoon of "information" that is delivered only by outlets whose bias mirrors their own. We've traded detached, objective journalism from three or four sources for highly partisan, spinning by hundreds of sources.

IMHO it is a shame. And, imho, Fox news is leading the parade and a perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in America. But other outlets may only be marginally better.

No, you're just pissed because FOX news isn't drinking the Obama Kool-aid.

Just admit it. They took down your fellow commie bastard Van Jones, along with a few other complete scumbags that you so disgustingly love and admire. And they're not going to let up. Get used too it. The hammering of this sham president and his administration has only just begun. And RIGHTFULLY so!

Actually, Wicked, NoDog is absolutely right.

I lament the lack of journalistic integrity in the media today - and not just in the US, it is going that way in the UK, certainly in the print media - less so in broadcast.

If we accept that they are partisan, then Fox fulfills a vital function - that of providing the opposite coverage to the Obamanation's MSM that would have us believe that the world is flat, the sky is green and Obama is a perfect man.

Although, personally, from what I see, Fox is actually the most balanced of them all.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote: That's some very interesting results. Looks like an across the board erosion of confidence except for NPR.

And pretty low ratings for Fox and the highest overall confidence in CNN.

It's an interesting site - they do quite a lot of analysis of trends. One of the things that they also noted about cable in 2009 was:

In a big news year, most media continued to see audiences shrink.

Only two platforms clearly grew: the Internet, where the gains seemed more structural, and cable, where they were more event-specific.

The data also suggest a clear trend in the changing nature of how Americans now learn about the world around them. People are relying more heavily — both during peak moments and in general — on platforms that can deliver news when audiences want it rather than at appointed times, a sign of a growing “on demand” news culture. People increasingly want the news they want when they want it.

* Much of that traffic, moreover, went to the biggest Internet sites, many of them offering news primarily from wire services or aggregated from legacy media outlets. The top 50 news websites saw traffic for the year grow 27%, according to PEJ’s analysis of comScore data, while all news and information sites grew 7%. The top four news sites —Yahoo, MSNBC.com, CNN.com and AOL—saw unique visitors grow 22% to 23.6 million visitors a month. That was twice the rate of increase of 2007 and more than five times the rate in 2006.

* The gains in cable, which generated even greater publicity, were more ephemeral. For 2008, the average monthly audience of the three major news channels throughout the day and evening grew by 38%, to a new high of 2.2 million. But after the election, the audience began to drift away. A bump in early 2009, though, brought the average back up slightly, and in February, prime-time audiences were running 5% ahead of the corresponding month of 2008.

When I look at the big picture, I think the findings support the idea that the "information age" is quickly turning into the "disinformation age."

I think people are finding it all to easy to wrap themselves into a cocoon of "information" that is delivered only by outlets whose bias mirrors their own. We've traded detached, objective journalism from three or four sources for highly partisan, spinning by hundreds of sources.

IMHO it is a shame. And, imho, Fox news is leading the parade and a perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in America. But other outlets may only be marginally better.

I totally agree and that is why cable as a whole as done so well in developing niches. I think Pew also found that people tend to view those sources that most mirror their own views and real objectivity no longer matters in the development of these niches.

Also...with the internet, there is no standard to attempt to uphold and there is no accountability. At least in the mainstream media - broadcast television, the print, and to a lesser extent cable there are still some journalistic standards but they are being dismantled in the drive for ratings. Fox does it by blurring the distinction between opinion and news and marketing it all as "Fox News". MSNBC - which I watch even less than Fox probably does the same thing. People like them because they like hearing opinion.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Id call that the Bozona effect.
If I were a hack and I had the chance to make Fox look bad,
I would answer the same way.

 

[nodoginnafight]

When I look at the big picture, I think the findings support the idea that the "information age" is quickly turning into the "disinformation age."

I think people are finding it all to easy to wrap themselves into a cocoon of "information" that is delivered only by outlets whose bias mirrors their own. We've traded detached, objective journalism from three or four sources for highly partisan, spinning by hundreds of sources.

IMHO it is a shame. And, imho, Fox news is leading the parade and a perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in America. But other outlets may only be marginally better.

No, you're just pissed because FOX news isn't drinking the Obama Kool-aid.

Just admit it. They took down your fellow commie bastard Van Jones, along with a few other complete scumbags that you so disgustingly love and admire. And they're not going to let up. Get used too it. The hammering of this sham president and his administration has only just begun. And RIGHTFULLY so!

Actually, Wicked, NoDog is absolutely right.

I lament the lack of journalistic integrity in the media today - and not just in the US, it is going that way in the UK, certainly in the print media - less so in broadcast.

If we accept that they are partisan, then Fox fulfills a vital function - that of providing the opposite coverage to the Obamanation's MSM that would have us believe that the world is flat, the sky is green and Obama is a perfect man.

Although, personally, from what I see, Fox is actually the most balanced of them all.

I'll also agree that if we accept there are broadcast outlets that are partisan, then there is a legimate reason for an outlet to take on the role as an advocate for a particular point of view as a counter to one that is presenting the opposite view.

I disagree as to which outlet presents the most balanced view - I think CNN is that source -but to each his or her own. But you can't accept the role of advocate for a particular point of view and ALSO present balance imho.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It's an interesting site - they do quite a lot of analysis of trends. One of the things that they also noted about cable in 2009 was:

When I look at the big picture, I think the findings support the idea that the "information age" is quickly turning into the "disinformation age."

I think people are finding it all to easy to wrap themselves into a cocoon of "information" that is delivered only by outlets whose bias mirrors their own. We've traded detached, objective journalism from three or four sources for highly partisan, spinning by hundreds of sources.

IMHO it is a shame. And, imho, Fox news is leading the parade and a perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in America. But other outlets may only be marginally better.

I totally agree and that is why cable as a whole as done so well in developing niches. I think Pew also found that people tend to view those sources that most mirror their own views and real objectivity no longer matters in the development of these niches.

Also...with the internet, there is no standard to attempt to uphold and there is no accountability. At least in the mainstream media - broadcast television, the print, and to a lesser extent cable there are still some journalistic standards but they are being dismantled in the drive for ratings. Fox does it by blurring the distinction between opinion and news and marketing it all as "Fox News". MSNBC - which I watch even less than Fox probably does the same thing. People like them because they like hearing opinion.

Exactly - a journalist finds it his or her duty to rattle people's comfort zone from time to time. But we are seeing less and less of that as outlets pander to the bias of their audience accepting no real responsibility to present a balance that their viewers might find uncomfortable.

The fairness doctrine is no longer applicable since public airwaves are an increasingly smaller and smaller share of the big picture. But when there were just three or four sources - there was a lot more pressure and accountability to present a balanced view.

 

[Coyote]

When I look at the big picture, I think the findings support the idea that the "information age" is quickly turning into the "disinformation age."

I think people are finding it all to easy to wrap themselves into a cocoon of "information" that is delivered only by outlets whose bias mirrors their own. We've traded detached, objective journalism from three or four sources for highly partisan, spinning by hundreds of sources.

IMHO it is a shame. And, imho, Fox news is leading the parade and a perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in America. But other outlets may only be marginally better.

I totally agree and that is why cable as a whole as done so well in developing niches. I think Pew also found that people tend to view those sources that most mirror their own views and real objectivity no longer matters in the development of these niches.

Also...with the internet, there is no standard to attempt to uphold and there is no accountability. At least in the mainstream media - broadcast television, the print, and to a lesser extent cable there are still some journalistic standards but they are being dismantled in the drive for ratings. Fox does it by blurring the distinction between opinion and news and marketing it all as "Fox News". MSNBC - which I watch even less than Fox probably does the same thing. People like them because they like hearing opinion.

Exactly - a journalist finds it his or her duty to rattle people's comfort zone from time to time. But we are seeing less and less of that as outlets pander to the bias of their audience accepting no real responsibility to present a balance that their viewers might find uncomfortable.

The fairness doctrine is no longer applicable since public airwaves are an increasingly smaller and smaller share of the big picture. But when there were just three or four sources - there was a lot more pressure and accountability to present a balanced view.

Good point. It did make sense at one time but definately not now. In many ways the internet has really changed things. On the plus side - you can get an infinite number of sources and views - on the negative side...you have to be willing to look and think critically.

 

[nodoginnafight]

you have to be willing to look and think critically.

right on target - imho.

 

[California Girl]

No, you're just pissed because FOX news isn't drinking the Obama Kool-aid.

Just admit it. They took down your fellow commie bastard Van Jones, along with a few other complete scumbags that you so disgustingly love and admire. And they're not going to let up. Get used too it. The hammering of this sham president and his administration has only just begun. And RIGHTFULLY so!

Actually, Wicked, NoDog is absolutely right.

I lament the lack of journalistic integrity in the media today - and not just in the US, it is going that way in the UK, certainly in the print media - less so in broadcast.

If we accept that they are partisan, then Fox fulfills a vital function - that of providing the opposite coverage to the Obamanation's MSM that would have us believe that the world is flat, the sky is green and Obama is a perfect man.

Although, personally, from what I see, Fox is actually the most balanced of them all.

I'll also agree that if we accept there are broadcast outlets that are partisan, then there is a legimate reason for an outlet to take on the role as an advocate for a particular point of view as a counter to one that is presenting the opposite view.

I disagree as to which outlet presents the most balanced view - I think CNN is that source -but to each his or her own. But you can't accept the role of advocate for a particular point of view and ALSO present balance imho.

I find it hard to comment on CNN as I know them better than the others - and I have personal issues with them. In that, during the election, one of their editors told me - to my face - that they "were gonna make Obama President". I can't source that - obviously. But that does color my view of their lack of bias!!

 

[Intense]

When I look at the big picture, I think the findings support the idea that the "information age" is quickly turning into the "disinformation age."

I think people are finding it all to easy to wrap themselves into a cocoon of "information" that is delivered only by outlets whose bias mirrors their own. We've traded detached, objective journalism from three or four sources for highly partisan, spinning by hundreds of sources.

IMHO it is a shame. And, imho, Fox news is leading the parade and a perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in America. But other outlets may only be marginally better.

I totally agree and that is why cable as a whole as done so well in developing niches. I think Pew also found that people tend to view those sources that most mirror their own views and real objectivity no longer matters in the development of these niches.

Also...with the internet, there is no standard to attempt to uphold and there is no accountability. At least in the mainstream media - broadcast television, the print, and to a lesser extent cable there are still some journalistic standards but they are being dismantled in the drive for ratings. Fox does it by blurring the distinction between opinion and news and marketing it all as "Fox News". MSNBC - which I watch even less than Fox probably does the same thing. People like them because they like hearing opinion.

Exactly - a journalist finds it his or her duty to rattle people's comfort zone from time to time. But we are seeing less and less of that as outlets pander to the bias of their audience accepting no real responsibility to present a balance that their viewers might find uncomfortable.

The fairness doctrine is no longer applicable since public airwaves are an increasingly smaller and smaller share of the big picture. But when there were just three or four sources - there was a lot more pressure and accountability to present a balanced view.

We were lied to by the Networks throughout the Vietnam War. We just didn't know it.
Stolen Valor was a very informing read. Very embarrassing for some.
Stolen Valor
How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History
B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley

http://www.stolenvalor.com/

 

[RadiomanATL]

An example of Maddow being dishonest please. The word dishonest and Maddow and Hannity dont belong in the same sentance.

We will talk about olbermann after you prove Maddow was dishonest.

Flashback: MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Touted False Limbaugh Quote in June

Really Zona. STFU about something you know nothing about. Took me all of 5 seconds to find an example.

Here's some intellectual dishonesty on her show as well:

Comical Hypocrisy on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show at MISSOURAH.com

This whole "my side is holier than thou" thing that you 'tards propagate is just ridiculous.

Still waiting for a lie from Maddow...Hello...

Does your computer not allow you to click on links, or are you too stupid to do so?

 

[Wicked Jester]

Flashback: MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Touted False Limbaugh Quote in June

Really Zona. STFU about something you know nothing about. Took me all of 5 seconds to find an example.

Here's some intellectual dishonesty on her show as well:

Comical Hypocrisy on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show at MISSOURAH.com

This whole "my side is holier than thou" thing that you 'tards propagate is just ridiculous.

Still waiting for a lie from Maddow...Hello...

Does your computer not allow you to click on links, or are you too stupid to do so?

Uh, it's obviously the latter!

 

[QUENTIN]

I'm just gonna repost this in its entirety since no one responded to it and CaliforniaGirl continues to use it as the cornerstone of her argument even though it's not, you know, remotely true.

I'd love to see some evidence of the left praising Beck or using him as some regularly quoted source during the Bush years when he, *stifling laughter*, was a supposed regular critic of the Administration.

I don't mean one article you can find on Daily Kos where some anonymous commenter says "Even Glenn Beck doesn't like this," as he like every other spinner had to voice discontent once in a great while with a minor Bush policy so as not to appear to be the complete and total lapdog he was, I mean any evidence that demonstrates that Glenn Beck was anything but laughed off as an idiot by the left then too because he was a servile GOP spokesman.

This argument that the left used to like or cite Glenn Beck pre-Obama administration is pure revisionism and sorry clowns, but it's too recent for you to be able to get away with. We're talking a couple of years here, and anyone paying attention would remember that's decidedly not the case. Beck was rightly grouped by the left with O'Reilly and Hannity as an extension of Bush's press secretary, the most attention he got from the left was when he idiotically asked a Muslim congressman to prove he wasn't a traitorous infiltrator.

Cut the crap and can the lies, Beck's been known as a phony faux-populist far-right loon since the moment he became popular, it's not some big reversal because suddenly he's attacking Democrats, that's always been his schtick, as a GOP spokesman with a talk show, that's his very purpose. Like a lot of so-called conservatives, he just now found his supposed anti-government roots because his party is no longer in office.

I don't hate or fear the man, just know that he's an idiot, a liar, and is making a career out of manipulating people based on irrational fears while ignoring the genuine, reality-based and consequential issues people should be alerted to and concerned about.

It's quite common now for Republicans and conservatives in the aftermath of Bush's extreme and widespread unpopularity and undeniable failure to claim they criticized him all along, and now by proxy they're claiming the newly-appointed leader of their movement did that. But we're talking recent history here and the guy is on TV and radio so there's a record of everything he's said on the subject. That record demonstrates the complete fallacy of that claim.

The fact is, it's completely untrue that Beck was ever a serious critic of Bush or his Administration while they were in power, he was a cheerleader for every wrongheaded and deplorable move they made at the very least for the first six years of their reign.

CaliforniaGirl, I'm calling you out, you're LYING and you don't have an argument because Beck was never some favorite source for the left and never a substantial critic of the Bush Administration. Show some proof of either of those ridiculous claims or STFU.

 

[California Girl]

I'm just gonna repost this in its entirety since no one responded to it and CaliforniaGirl continues to use it as the cornerstone of her argument even though it's not, you know, remotely true.

I'd love to see some evidence of the left praising Beck or using him as some regularly quoted source during the Bush years when he, *stifling laughter*, was a supposed regular critic of the Administration.

I don't mean one article you can find on Daily Kos where some anonymous commenter says "Even Glenn Beck doesn't like this," as he like every other spinner had to voice discontent once in a great while with a minor Bush policy so as not to appear to be the complete and total lapdog he was, I mean any evidence that demonstrates that Glenn Beck was anything but laughed off as an idiot by the left then too because he was a servile GOP spokesman.

This argument that the left used to like or cite Glenn Beck pre-Obama administration is pure revisionism and sorry clowns, but it's too recent for you to be able to get away with. We're talking a couple of years here, and anyone paying attention would remember that's decidedly not the case. Beck was rightly grouped by the left with O'Reilly and Hannity as an extension of Bush's press secretary, the most attention he got from the left was when he idiotically asked a Muslim congressman to prove he wasn't a traitorous infiltrator.

Cut the crap and can the lies, Beck's been known as a phony faux-populist far-right loon since the moment he became popular, it's not some big reversal because suddenly he's attacking Democrats, that's always been his schtick, as a GOP spokesman with a talk show, that's his very purpose. Like a lot of so-called conservatives, he just now found his supposed anti-government roots because his party is no longer in office.

I don't hate or fear the man, just know that he's an idiot, a liar, and is making a career out of manipulating people based on irrational fears while ignoring the genuine, reality-based and consequential issues people should be alerted to and concerned about.

It's quite common now for Republicans and conservatives in the aftermath of Bush's extreme and widespread unpopularity and undeniable failure to claim they criticized him all along, and now by proxy they're claiming the newly-appointed leader of their movement did that. But we're talking recent history here and the guy is on TV and radio so there's a record of everything he's said on the subject. That record demonstrates the complete fallacy of that claim.

The fact is, it's completely untrue that Beck was ever a serious critic of Bush or his Administration while they were in power, he was a cheerleader for every wrongheaded and deplorable move they made at the very least for the first six years of their reign.

CaliforniaGirl, I'm calling you out, you're LYING and you don't have an argument because Beck was never some favorite source for the left and never a substantial critic of the Bush Administration. Show some proof of either of those ridiculous claims or STFU.

Unfortuntely, whenever anyone tells me that I'm 'LYING' and I should STFU, I tend to dismiss that individual as a complete and total asshole who doesn't deserve polite and reasoned debate.

So, respectfully, fuck off and get your own information.

*Note: I managed to post WITHOUTH USING STUPID CAPITALS TO MAKE A STUPID POINT*

*Sniggers at idiots*

 

[QUENTIN]

I'm just gonna repost this in its entirety since no one responded to it and CaliforniaGirl continues to use it as the cornerstone of her argument even though it's not, you know, remotely true.

I'd love to see some evidence of the left praising Beck or using him as some regularly quoted source during the Bush years when he, *stifling laughter*, was a supposed regular critic of the Administration.

I don't mean one article you can find on Daily Kos where some anonymous commenter says "Even Glenn Beck doesn't like this," as he like every other spinner had to voice discontent once in a great while with a minor Bush policy so as not to appear to be the complete and total lapdog he was, I mean any evidence that demonstrates that Glenn Beck was anything but laughed off as an idiot by the left then too because he was a servile GOP spokesman.

This argument that the left used to like or cite Glenn Beck pre-Obama administration is pure revisionism and sorry clowns, but it's too recent for you to be able to get away with. We're talking a couple of years here, and anyone paying attention would remember that's decidedly not the case. Beck was rightly grouped by the left with O'Reilly and Hannity as an extension of Bush's press secretary, the most attention he got from the left was when he idiotically asked a Muslim congressman to prove he wasn't a traitorous infiltrator.

Cut the crap and can the lies, Beck's been known as a phony faux-populist far-right loon since the moment he became popular, it's not some big reversal because suddenly he's attacking Democrats, that's always been his schtick, as a GOP spokesman with a talk show, that's his very purpose. Like a lot of so-called conservatives, he just now found his supposed anti-government roots because his party is no longer in office.

I don't hate or fear the man, just know that he's an idiot, a liar, and is making a career out of manipulating people based on irrational fears while ignoring the genuine, reality-based and consequential issues people should be alerted to and concerned about.

It's quite common now for Republicans and conservatives in the aftermath of Bush's extreme and widespread unpopularity and undeniable failure to claim they criticized him all along, and now by proxy they're claiming the newly-appointed leader of their movement did that. But we're talking recent history here and the guy is on TV and radio so there's a record of everything he's said on the subject. That record demonstrates the complete fallacy of that claim.

The fact is, it's completely untrue that Beck was ever a serious critic of Bush or his Administration while they were in power, he was a cheerleader for every wrongheaded and deplorable move they made at the very least for the first six years of their reign.

CaliforniaGirl, I'm calling you out, you're LYING and you don't have an argument because Beck was never some favorite source for the left and never a substantial critic of the Bush Administration. Show some proof of either of those ridiculous claims or STFU.

Unfortuntely, whenever anyone tells me that I'm 'LYING' and I should STFU, I tend to dismiss that individual as a complete and total asshole who doesn't deserve polite and reasoned debate.

So, respectfully, fuck off and get your own information.

*Note: I managed to post WITHOUTH USING STUPID CAPITALS TO MAKE A STUPID POINT*

*Sniggers at idiots*

Translation: Yeah, I got nothing. There is no evidence of Beck doing that or liberals praising him, because neither of those things actually happened. I was lying, good call.