Glen Beck-Reconstructing History

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Oh, my bad...I was actually going to redirect it towards historical revisionism (which is Beck's main weapon).

My thought, was simply that anyone to use revisionist history to further their agenda, including Glen Beck, shouldn't be given so much attention. History is there, it's fact. Yes we learn something new everyday, but for the most part, it is what it is.

Sorry Boozy

You make it sound as if Beck is the only out there presenting certain elements of history in a certain way. Most every history book ever written contains some bias on the part of the author, some facts that aren't included or not presented correctly.

There are many revisionists out there far worse than Glenn Beck.

[Hobbs]

You make it sound as if Beck is the only out there presenting certain elements of history in a certain way. Most every history book ever written contains some bias on the part of the author, some facts that aren't included or not presented correctly.

There are many revisionists out there far worse than Glenn Beck.

Please name one.

[Gravekeeper]

Please name one.

Cheney.

<shivers from the black wind that breezes past at the utterance of that name and the need for a bare minimum amount of characters to post>

[Skunkle]

As to Fox News, can someone tell me which shows on Fox provide a left viewpoint that's realistic? The only examples I've ever seen while watching Fox were guys brought in to rant and rave about supposedly Liberal things and look like an idiot, and Hannity & Colmes in which Alan Holmes said very little thaty any liberal I know would agree with, and generally acted the wimpy, half-hearted part.

Where on Fox do they give both sides equal time to talk, and not have a "liberal" who's either ranting at high volume, or cowering under the glare? I want to see both sides debate with at least approximately equal fervor. Not all liberals are nutjobs or wealkings. Not all conservatives are, either.

[Tanasi]

Hanity's Great American panel always has at least one liberal or left-leaner frequently Juan Williams. O'Reiley frequently has liberals. Both have open invitations to the President and I'd dare say they'd put him on live so nothing he says could be taken or edited out of context. Palin couldn't get that deal from the liberal media.
Why is the liberal leadership afraid to appear on Fox? The conservative leaders frequently appear on CNN, MSNBC, et. al...

[Gravekeeper]

Why is the liberal leadership afraid to appear on Fox? The conservative leaders frequently appear on CNN, MSNBC, et. al...

Because:

A) Fox will edit the hell out of it to fit their narrative ( See the recent John Stewart interview with Rush. The FULL version. )
B) You're not going to get any sort of real debate or discussion
C) The people watching Fox think the "winner" of the debate is whomever is yelling and berating their opponent the loudest ( See B ).

[Boozy]

If I were a liberal politician in the US, I'd never appear on Fox. Fox viewers aren't exactly swing-voters. These are people who already hate me, and will never ever vote for me. So why waste precious campaign time on an appearance that will gain nothing?

Conservative politicians rarely appear on extremely liberal shows, either. For the same reasons.

It's not a conspiracy, they aren't "hiding" anything, and they aren't "scared". It's just a bloody pointless waste of time. For everyone.

[AdminAssistant]

( See the recent John Stewart interview with Rush. The FULL version. )

Can I nitpick something? It's just something I've seen several people on the boards do.

It's Jon Stewart. No 'H'. Jon.

K.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[guywithashovel]

I've always thought that the reason why Obama has never accepted invitations to go on Fox News or debate Rush Limbaugh is because he has a country to run, an economy to fix, a broken health care system to overhaul, the US reputation around the world to salvage, as well as a host of other things.

[Tanasi]

Because:

A) Fox will edit the hell out of it to fit their narrative ( See the recent John Stewart interview with Rush. The FULL version. )
B) You're not going to get any sort of real debate or discussion
C) The people watching Fox think the "winner" of the debate is whomever is yelling and berating their opponent the loudest ( See B ).

Did you not read my whole post? I don't know for sure but if Obama would agree to be on Fox as long as it was live I'd say they'd jump on it with both feet. If it's live then it can't be edited or taken out of context. But I'll say Obama won't do it because he doesn't want to answer the hard questions.
As far as debate goes if he's the only one answering questions where is the debate. Winner, hmmm??? I didn't know there was winners and loosers in interviews but whatever.

If I were a liberal politician in the US, I'd never appear on Fox. Fox viewers aren't exactly swing-voters. These are people who already hate me, and will never ever vote for me. So why waste precious campaign time on an appearance that will gain nothing?

Conservative politicians rarely appear on extremely liberal shows, either. For the same reasons.

It's not a conspiracy, they aren't "hiding" anything, and they aren't "scared". It's just a bloody pointless waste of time. For everyone.

Fox viewers are probably more conservative and right leaning than say CNN, MSNBC viewers but that's no surprise. Do you now think folks on the right not tune into CNN with someone they're interested in is on??? If no one from the left watches Fox then why do so many of their complaints and comments read on air???

Besides liberals being unwilling to appear on Fox tells Fox viewers that the liberals are scared and if it is as you say Fox viewers won't swing then what does the liberals have to loose??? It seems to me that they have more to gain because they might just might convice a viewer of their POV. Even if it's a waste of time the liberals can't say they didn't get the opportunity.

Conservitive leaders usually aren't invited on liberal shows. The liberal shows will stack a panel with liberals and one slightly right leaning moderate that plays the part of conservative. At least on Fox if they only have one liberal they let them have their say. Granted some overtalking goes on both ways but I know Hanity stops it so all can be heard. I know Rush won't appear on other "news" stations unless he's live because he's been badly burned by editing in the past.

I've always thought that the reason why Obama has never accepted invitations to go on Fox News or debate Rush Limbaugh is because he has a country to run, an economy to fix, a broken health care system to overhaul, the US reputation around the world to salvage, as well as a host of other things.

If he is so concerned about running the county then why did he jet off to try to get Chicago the olympics??? Heck I'd say Fox is more than willing to meet him anywhere anytime. He won't come on Fox because he doesn't want to answer the hard questions. With Rush I don't think he'd waste his time with an Obama interview.



An open question to all: How many of you actually watch Fox news? How often???
My answer is on my cable Fox is next to the Food Network so when Alton, Guy, et al are at commerical I'll flip over to Fox to see what's going on. If it's interesting I sometimes catch the rerun. I'm not a fan of O'Rielley he's too pompus but if he has someone on interesting I'll watch, especially Dennis Miller or John Stossel are on.

[Fryk]

I think that Fox News would do well to sever ties with both O'Reilley and Hannity. This has nothing to do with their political views; I happen to agree with them on a few issues. What pisses me off about them, and ends up coloring my view of the whole channel, is the way they conduct interviews. They come off as whiny petulant five-year-olds, constantly interrupting their guests belittling them and calling them names. And lest you think that it IS a liberal versus Democrat thing, I also feel the same way about Nancy Grace.

[Gravekeeper]

They come off as whiny petulant five-year-olds, constantly interrupting their guests belittling them and calling them names. And lest you think that it IS a liberal versus Democrat thing, I also feel the same way about Nancy Grace.

Yes but this is what the viewing audience wants. They perceive that as "winning".

[crashhelmet]

If he is so concerned about running the county then why did he jet off to try to get Chicago the olympics??? Heck I'd say Fox is more than willing to meet him anywhere anytime. He won't come on Fox because he doesn't want to answer the hard questions. With Rush I don't think he'd waste his time with an Obama interview.

That's all a part of running the country. Bringing the Olympics to Chicago would've been a HUGE stimulant to their local economy as well as the travel industry bringing people into the area. Every President wants to have the Olympics in their country.

An open question to all: How many of you actually watch Fox news? How often???
My answer is on my cable Fox is next to the Food Network so when Alton, Guy, et al are at commerical I'll flip over to Fox to see what's going on. If it's interesting I sometimes catch the rerun. I'm not a fan of O'Rielley he's too pompus but if he has someone on interesting I'll watch, especially Dennis Miller or John Stossel are on.

When I was a bartender, I could only have 2 things on the TVs that circled my bar. Sports or News. To keep things fair and balanced, I alternated every TV with ESPN, CNN, FOX News, and Headline News. I threw Headline news into their because it gave better, up to date stock information. So for 4 years, I watched/listened to Fox News for 8+ hours straight, 5-6 days a week. I've heard it all, from the good to the gawd awful.

CH

[Skunkle]

Notice that recently, when Obama got the leaders in Congress together and essentially berated BOTH sides for spending more effort on "who's on top" than on getting work done, Fox News cut the 2nd half of the broadcast. Other stations showed the entire thing. I don't think they liked that he was grilling both sides with equal ferocity.

Obama hasn't been on Fox and I don't think he will be. He hasn't been on other news channels for a little chat, either. He's busy. As for him not being fiscally responsible, the Conservatives talk about our current hole as though the best fixes won't cost the taxpayers a dime. NOTHING costs nothing. And the Bush admin spent the end of the presidency trying valiantly to assure us that the economy was doing quite well, when it visibly and obviously was sinking ever faster into a pit. One thing I like about Obama is that, at press conferences, he'll take questions from ANYONE. And he'll answer them, in clear and concise detail. And if someone starts speaking to ask him a question and begins rambling, he asks them to quit it, be direct and ask him real questions. Bush was a horrible speaker and a horrible face for an administration; he very visibly did NOT really know the issues, on more than one occasion dropped hints that he really wasn't paying a lick of attention, and couldn't answer anything in detail or take random questions because, without a pre-written script, he tended to stumble and ramble (which isn't unique to him - there have been other politicians who, good OR bad, just suck at oration).

I don't like everything Obama is doing, or how he's advising we do it, but I think he's trying. What he's receiving in general is akin to pulling out two hundred strings of Christmas lights in a massive, tangled ball, handing them off to someone, and then constantly berating them for not having them untangled yet, or for how they're trying to do it. We're in a war that the Bush admin was openly stating would go on indefinitely, and the one battle they declared was won is obviously far from over; Our health insurance system is a mess, with countless people who DO have jobs and homes still unable to afford basic care; our school system needs funds desperately, as money earmarked for it by the last admin never arrived; and Congress' Democrats and Republicans can't stop trying to stomp on each others' toes long enough to actually do any constructive work. As for that, I'd love to see happen now what happened when Congress kept infighting during the Clinton era: he let the government-at-large just SHUT DOWN for a bit until Congress realized that they actually had to quit poking each others' eyes and actually pass a budget.

The problem I have with media in general is that the Liberal media CANNOT STAND to give Conservatives any time, and Conservative media CANNOT STAND to give the Liberals any time. They're fighting tooth-and-nail like Congress, and it's useless, really. Listen... I've watched a lot of news. When Fox News has a "Liberal" on a show, they either run him over at every turn, or they start with one who's either a milquetoast or a raving lunatic. But the Liberal media outlets do the same freakin' thing when they bring on a "Conservative" - if he's strong-willed and openly gives his thoughts, he's slammed at every turn. Otherwise, he's a barely-right-of-center moderate and usually very quiet and meek.

Face it. Neither side gives the other a snowball's chance in hell on their broadcasts. And it sucks.

[Hobbs]

I think he finally put that nail in his coffin.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_497715.html