I love the Point of Inquiry podcast and hate that my first post in the forum is a complaint. If the Center for Inquiry promotes “reason, science and secular values”, the most recent episode did not live up to that standard. Instead of enlightening the listener as to why any of Glenn Beck’s claims are wrong, the host and guest focused on why he is a bad person. Even when presented with the opportunity to discuss Beck’s claims, they passed it to continue discussing him as a person. Being a bad person, even a disagreeable person, does not translate to being wrong.
This may be a point well taken. In that show, it was assumed that listeners are familiar with Glenn Beck and his claims, and the fact that much of what he communicates is fallacious. That was the jumping-off point; the approach of the show was not to refute him per se, but to dissect his origins, his career trajectory, his skills and techniques. Glenn Beck’s opinions and declarations in general do not stand up to the scrutiny of a critical thinker. I do think he’s bright enough that, half the time he knows he’s just putting out nonsense; he’s just keeping his fans entertained by telling them things they want to hear.
Here’s an example: recently when Sen Byrd died, he was ranting about how the news networks were showing no footage or pictures of him filibustering the Civil Rights Act in 1964, as if it was a deliberate choice not to show it. As anyone who knows anything about media history knows (including him with his media background), no photography of any kind was permitted on the floor of Congress in 1964. Hence no photos or footage exist of the filibuster. This kind of game is classic Glenn Beck.
Glenn Beck is a raving, foaming at the mouth lunatic. But an amusing one. To those of us who find crazy funny.
Must be quite a number who do, because he gets paid a lot of money to be a lunatic.
From what I understand he is a fairly rational nice guy. However he makes his money by putting on a show (30 million+) by being iconic and raving.
More interesting I think is why people tune in. He fulfills a need that people are willing to pay a lot for.
If you could make 30 million by becoming a media icon and acting like a raving lunatic? (30 million is a lot of money - Ok, yeah I’m a sell out, but for 30 million I wouldn’t care how many books they write about me. Plus think about all those people I’d be helping out by giving them something to write about) Everybody wins…
Who cares about what these media profiteers think? Apparently a lot of people do. Why?... I think that’s the more interesting question.
It has a lot to do with what he says during his raving. He tells people what they want to hear without actually saying anything. He’s vague and emotional with just enough of a message to get people to nod their heads in agreement.
I was referring to his audience. The rest of the people that tune in are probably a combination of crazy watchers, Howard Stern fan-esque shock watchers, and the liberal version of those parent and Christian groups that look for profanity and indecency in television shows.
You say you think he’s funny. Why? Do you think his base is so small that it doesn’t matter?
Different parts of the country are more—insulated?—than others; in some areas (like where I live, it seems) you find significant numbers of people who genuinely seem to think he’s the man.
Quite a few people around here think he’s great too. I think he’s funny in the way I find a crazy person walking down the street screaming at mailboxes funny. It’s funny, but sad at the same time.
Maybe the issue is, as I think was mentioned before, is someone like Beck a focus and a stimulus to those who think he’s great to put their beliefs, ideas, etc in greater practice in our society? The guy casts himself as the leader of a movement, is that to be taken seriously?
Maybe the issue is, as I think was mentioned before, is someone like Beck a focus and a stimulus to those who think he’s great to put their beliefs, ideas, etc in greater practice in our society? The guy casts himself as the leader of a movement, is that to be taken seriously?
I don’t think he actually says anything however it is said in such a way that incites people into thinking he has said something controversial. Then the game seems that if you try to pin him down on something he becomes the concerned american who is just putting the questions out there.
Honestly I think the criticisms and books just provide fuel to keeps the fires going. Almost like watching wrestling. You know it ain’t real but it becomes fascinating to watch the fancy footwork.
I am unaware of any fundamental challenges that an objective human nature poses to liberalism. I read Steven Pinker’s “The Blank Slate” and I think he pretty effectively skewers tabula rasa and the noble savage, but one message I got from reading that book was that it is not the principles of liberalism but rather its current rhetoric which is challenged by a universal human nature.
