Normally I don't look forward to doing posts on The View or Glenn Beck because it makes people think that I watch them on a regular basis. Both, however, collided together to make a tasty train wreck sandwich when Beck appeared on a recent episode of The View.
Co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters took the crying giant to task for characterizations Beck made of them on his radio program. Beck's subsequent chair squirming was so great, it shifted the tectonic plates and almost created a second earthquake on the Northeastern seaboard.
Once my schadenfreude boner wore off (and I should emphasize that it was the one AND only time I have ever gotten any kind of boner during a viewing of The View), an interesting question trickled down into my brain. What exactly is Glenn Beck and other pundits' jobs in the world of television news?
They clearly aren't reporters since all they do is comment on things that have already been reported. And they aren't editorialists in the traditional sense of the word since they don't have to do fact checks, make corrections to incorrect stories, or represent the views of their network or newsroom. What I can gather from Glenn's flustered response to The View girls' flame throwers is that "commentators" don't have to research facts or verify stories for accuracy to make it to the air. What does that make him? A blogger?
So what would you call people like Beck and his ilk? Please keep your names clean ones.
The TV Squad Podcast: Linda Purl talks about The Office, we talk spoilers, and more
Ask TV Squad: Ghost Whisperer and more!
The TV Squad Podcast: Bill Scheft of The Late Show, Cake Boss, Mad Men and more
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
5-21-2009 @ 1:21PM
bruce said...
It drives me crazy that people listen to idiot liars like Beck. Why? Because he makes you feel good? Hitler made the German people feel good about their devastated economy after WWI, that doesn't mean he should be listened to. Look at how easy it is for this guy to lie? He'd lie about talking to someone on a train, you think he wouldn't lie about more important things? But he's betting that if you watch his show, you won't watch any of the people (Olbermann, etc) who point out his consistent lies. In other words, he expects his audience to be stupid and misinformed.
Find another way to feel good about yourself, even if it's chocolate icecream and heroin. It's better for you, and you won't be basing your happiness on intellectual dishonesty and flat-out lies.
Reply
5-21-2009 @ 1:47PM
miller980 said...
Oh yeah, like Olbermann's show isn't wall to wall lies! Beck and Olbermann are of the same ilk.
5-21-2009 @ 1:39PM
tpp said...
Entertainer.
Professional liar.
Propagandist.
Reply
5-21-2009 @ 1:42PM
nffcnnr said...
Glenn Beck: Lying Sack of Dog Mess (LSDM). Thank you, Whoopi.
Reply
5-21-2009 @ 1:44PM
Steven said...
Wow, you people are idiots. Have you ever listened to or watched
Glenn's show? I highly doubt it. If you would actually watch his
show, he does comment on news that's already been reported, but he
goes much further than that. He sees things that no one else is
reporting.
Kind of like Acorn. Ever wonder where the money goes and why we, the
taxpayers, should send them millions of dollars in this stimulus
plan? He talked to people that are still inside Acorn, and even those
that were fired for asking questions.
At least he has the balls to show the real truth behind a fraudulent
company such as Acorn.
Also, did anyone find how ignorant it was for the women on The View to make such a fuss out of who-said-hi-to-who first? Seems to me like they didn't want to handle the real topics.
Reply
5-21-2009 @ 7:40PM
Justin said...
Wow, you're an idiot. And that's not a liberal stance, it's a common sense stance.
I agree that Olbermann and Beck are the same in the sense of sensationalists. They stir the pot of their base on hot button issues. The difference is Beck does it to detriment about issues that shouldn't be issues and views that have no place in politics, though there are those that want those issues in politics because they make them money and keep them from doing real work. Olbermann, at the very least, presents important issues that affect everyone. His bad move is sensationalizing it for one audience rather than trying to draw in persons of all beliefs and political views.
But there really aren't many journalists doing TV journalism anymore. Everyone has an agenda because ad revenue dictates it.
5-21-2009 @ 1:53PM
Michael said...
Bruce, you know what drives me crazy? That people listen to idiot liars like Keith Olbermann. Why? Because it makes you feel good? But he's betting that if you watch his show, you won't watch any of the people (Beck, etc) who point out his consistent lies. In other words, he expects his audience to be stupid and misinformed. Beck, on the other hand, is unapologetic in his strong Libertarian stance.
Back in the 1960s, people relied on anchors like Water Cronkite to give them an unbiased and realistic portrait of what was going on. Since then, we have learned that Cronkite and Rather and many of the rest of the rest of them were complete partisans who furthered their own political agendas by carefully disguising it as honest and truthful reporting so as to be able to operate within the simplistic rules of the Fairness Doctrine.
I hadn't watched or listened to Beck before January. Since then, I have at times found myself in complete agreement with him and at other times thought he was way off base. But even when I disagree, I don't question the intellectual honesty of the arguments, only the conclusion.
And even though I find most of Olbermann arguments reprehensible, as do most other viewers judging from the ratings over the last few months, I don't support reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. I think the marketplace of ideas will settle the issue.
Reply
5-21-2009 @ 1:54PM
Carla said...
Glenn Beck said he "commentates." What? WHAT? Does he mean he "comments?" Comments is a word. It's in the dictionary. I don't know what commentates is.
These are the brains that appeal to conservative viewers? Why am I not surprised.
Beck is tool, and the clowns who watch his nonsense are tool fools.
Reply
5-21-2009 @ 4:08PM
Franklin said...
"Glenn Beck said he "commentates." What? WHAT? Does he mean he "comments?" Comments is a word. It's in the dictionary. I don't know what commentates is. "
ROFLMAO!!! To paraphrase Dan Aykroyd, "Carla you ignorant slut." Stop for a minute and consider that if every word you don't understand was removed from the dictionary, that tome would be reduced to a pamphlet printed in large typeface. "Commentate", while being a seldom-used word is indeed a word.
Good Libtard! Keep on believing that everything you don't underrstand is wrong. Berate it all. Don't educate yourself. Prefer the packaging to the contents. That's exactly why the worst president in American history is living in the White House right now. Too bad you didn't know your Daddy and Mommy has her mouth full of some guy's love juice, or they would've been able to tell you about their generation's colossal mistake who goes by the name of Jimmy Carter. Or as history remembers him: "The 2nd worst president in American history."
5-22-2009 @ 12:26AM
Malren said...
com⋅men⋅tate
/ˈkɒmənˌteɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kom-uhn-teyt] Show IPA verb, -tat⋅ed, -tat⋅ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to deliver a commentary on: to commentate a fashion show.
2. to write a commentary on; annotate: to commentate the Book of Job.
–verb (used without object)
3. to serve as a commentator: The senior staff member will commentate, as usual.
4. to make explanatory or critical comments, as upon a text: the manuscript on which I am commentating.
Origin:
1785–95; back formation from commentator
The irony of someone attacking Beck's intellect over a word they don't understand is rich. Rich with amusement.
5-21-2009 @ 1:58PM
Jussup said...
First let me state that I don't have a dog in the fight--I could really care less actually, it seems like more of a misunderstanding than anything. But that being said I didn't really see it as him getting torn a new one or anything. The tone of the article makes it sound like he got destroyed. Didn't see it like that.
Reply
5-21-2009 @ 2:31PM
Joe Brooks said...
Seriously? A 7 minute segment arguing about who said hello to whom first?
Reply
5-21-2009 @ 2:35PM
nate said...
i can't believe they wasted an entire segment on something as petty and stupid as "oh my god, you made fun of barbara walters in a stupid voice!" or who came upto whom. seriously? and then they accuse the guy of something and don't let him get a word in. to be honest, i don't even know what their complaint was; it was so poorly presented, a pain to watch, and indeed, a trainwreck of a segment, but just because of how terrible it was, and not because it was interesting in the least. i would love to see part 2 where they presumably talk about something with more weight than a "he said, she said" about the host's personal lives.
Reply
5-21-2009 @ 3:10PM
bruce said...
The argument that both sides are morally and factually equivalent and both equally reliable in their discourse is simply wrong. Olbermann is infinitely more honest than Beck. It's not a matter of political opinion. It's not a matter of subjectivity. It's objectively verifiable.
Reply
5-21-2009 @ 4:11PM
Franklin said...
Bullshit, but as a lib that's all you're capable of. Spew on, ye of little grey matter.
5-21-2009 @ 4:16PM
Just the Facts said...
You are nuts if you believe that. I don't see how you can say that anyone at NBC News is honest. At least Beck will debate people who disagree with him. Olbermann can only have people on his show who agree with him. The closest he gets to an intellectual debate is when he calls someone "the worst person in the world". And if Olbermann is so objective, then why did NBC have to pull him as an anchor during the election? Sounds like you need a lesson in objectivity.
5-21-2009 @ 4:22PM
Inge said...
Glen Beck is a joke and I only watch him occsionally when I need a good laugh. The women on the View did a great job calling him out. He seems to be a bully parading around as a recovered addict and religious spiritual being. He does not fool me. Good for you Whoopie and Barbara!
Reply
5-21-2009 @ 3:56PM
Leroy said...
The fact that TV still pretends to have something called "news" does not mean that there actually is any. There are virtually no reporters any more. The majority of stories are video packages sent out by industry, government, and political parties. These are run with no acknowledgement of the source and no fact checking.
How did this come about? It was the laws that corporations bribed Congress into passing that made maximizing profits the sole purpose of any company. They have no public responsibilities whatsoever any more. This meant broadcast networks were required to have news divisions that turned a profit. This meant advertising bucks were essential and caused the end of any reporting that might reflect negatively on anyone who might ever advertise on the news. It meant not running stories that might frighten or challenge or anger viewers right before they were being asked to buy something.
Now all we have left are "screaming heads" who play upon the prejudices of particular markets with no obligation to be truthful or factual.
Reply
5-21-2009 @ 4:44PM
bruce said...
The people are to blame, too. Why should real news not be profitable? Why should fake news be more profitable than real news? Companies always have a duty to their shareholders to make a profit. I don't really blame them for that. I blame the stupid people who make stupid things profitable. I blame the stupid people who make intelligent things unprofitable. Insofar as corporations commit violent acts of marketing to TELL PEOPLE what they should be watching, that's where I begin to blame them. Especially since their weapons of marketing destruction are telling people to watch fake news rather than real news.
5-21-2009 @ 4:12PM
Franklin said...
Amen, brother.
Reply