ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/21/2018 03:16 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  6.342 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
08/28/2009 04:35 AM ID: 80426 Permalink   

Glenn Beck Ratings Rise

 

Glenn Beck has been in the middle of controversy lately. A few weeks ago on Fox News, Beck called President Obama "racist," Which did not settle well with many Americans.

Many Americans started calling Beck's advertsers and demanding they pull their ads off Glenn Beck's 5 p.m. TV show on the Fox News Channel, which many advertisers did.

This has seemed to backfire. Beck on August 26th had over 3 million viewers and actually beat Bill O'Reilly in the demographic of 25 to 54-year-olds by 12,000 viewers. This is unusual since Beck airs before primetime, where fewer people watch TV.

 
  Source: tvbythenumbers.com  
    WebReporter: willyshawker Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  49 Comments
  
  @article  
 
I had to add since there wasnt much at the source so I went on what has been reported in the media.

I have detested his racist comment but the liberal media who wanted advertsiers to pull ads actually helped Beck more than hurt him.

Controversy brings in Ratings the exact reason I say if Fox dropped him tomorrow CNN or MSNBC would pick him right up.

I find it a pretty big deal to beat out Bill O Reilly when you air b4 primetime. Talk about all time backfires by the liberal media
 
  by: willyshawker     08/28/2009 04:39 AM     
  @  
 
Good for him, Obama used the race issue to his benefit all through his campaign. Beck just called a spade a spade.
 
  by: Hellblazer     08/28/2009 05:20 AM     
  Heh  
 
What do you expect is going to happen? Ya kno? You pull advertising, you get advertising in a different way lol.

How do you think Rush got his start?
 
  by: N3T_K1LLA     08/28/2009 05:24 AM     
  Now 46 Sponsors Have Walked  
 
n/t
 
  by: ichi     08/28/2009 05:57 AM     
  It doesn't matter how many people watch you ...  
 
... if you can't sell advertising, your goose is cooked. A zillion people could watch Glenn Beck but if nobody advertises, the network loses money.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/28/2009 06:36 AM     
  @ Ben_Reilly  
 
It doesn't matter how many people watch you ..

Isn't that statement half ass backwards?? I went to the Philadelphia Art Institute for commercial design, I am certain the advertiser's want the guy with the most viewers.

Could be why the article states,"This has seemed to backfire "
 
  by: Hellblazer     08/28/2009 07:11 AM     
  Also  
 
Glenn Beck is a deranged psychopath. Who wouldn't find *that* entertaining?

http://www.youtube.com/...

http://www.youtube.com/...
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/28/2009 07:19 AM     
  @Hellblazer  
 
In normal circumstances, yes, advertisers do want the show with the highest ratings. But if the host has a very negative public image, as Beck has, companies definitely do not want to risk having their products associated with him.

Beck is going to have to try to rein in some of his nuttier impulses or he *will* find himself out of a job no matter how many people watch him.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/28/2009 07:22 AM     
  Well  
 
46 requests not to advertise during his spot..will they have him go on for X amount of time without any commericals, or will they fill the spots with ads for their own upcoming shows on either the news network of one of the others Murdoch owns.

Did he ever apologize yet? And I don't mean the stupid Oh Im sorry line that almost everyone gives out while thinking about what is for dinner. Is he really sorry he said it, or is that how he feels and he would be better of just saying yes I'm racist?
 
  by: TaraB     08/28/2009 07:23 AM     
  Here's Beck  
 
... talking like he's very afraid he's about to get canned -- getting all emotional about it -- then coming on like a Southern Baptist preacher who just did shrooms ...

http://www.youtube.com/...
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/28/2009 07:29 AM     
  Ben  
 
screw adveritsers this is a big backfire for the simple reason. Fox isnt going to take him off the air and more viewers are listening to his ideas. See what I'm saying.

Accroding to alot of liberals he spews garbage (which somnetimes he does) but now becuase of the liberals protesting him more people are going to listen to the garbage take it in and believe it which in return is going to turn more people against Obamas policies.

So the liberals just dealt themsleves a losing hand they should have let him go unnoticed now there will be more uniformed people out there becuase of all the noise that was made
 
  by: willyshawker     08/28/2009 07:46 AM     
  also  
 
over the next few months you will see advertisers go back to the show after things die down. They will see the increased ratings and see they can make money and voila they will be back.

In the end all of the noise that was made will actually have helped Beck get his agenda out to more Americans and hurt the democratic party IMO
 
  by: willyshawker     08/28/2009 07:53 AM     
  more info @  
 
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/...

I also bet if Obama where to say white people are racist Color of Change would not be protesting him. While I disagree with what Beck said he is getting crusified for his 1st ammendment right and companies are to scared of color of change to tell them to piss off.

In this economy and w/his rating increase I advertise on his show and come out in public and say I dont agree w/whatr he said but it is his right to say that so i'm not dropping my advertising. Would that make me racist? NOPE
 
  by: willyshawker     08/28/2009 08:02 AM     
  @willy  
 
Well, it's not really accurate to act as though all liberals rose up as one against Glenn Beck. A liberal organization with about 600,000 members is behind this, known as Color of Change.

And I'm sorry, but the only thing Fox News cares about -- just like CNN, MSNBC, and every other network -- is ad sales. Now 46 companies aren't buying ads in Glenn Beck's air time because of this. I promise you, the powers that be at Fox are in no way happy about this.

As far as more people seeing him, that doesn't necessarily amount to more people believing him. Many are no doubt tuning in to see what the controversy is all about. It could even work against Beck, as more people see first-hand how out of control he gets and the over-the-top message he puts out.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/28/2009 08:02 AM     
  @willy  
 
Of course that wouldn't make you a racist. But a lot of people wouldn't see it that way, and perhaps you'd like them to buy your products, so ... It's just a business decision. They don't give a damn about the politics of it -- this is all about risk they perceive to the public image of their brand.

This happens all the time. Remember when NYPD Blue started showing nudity? You may be too young ... anyway, some family and Christian organizations started a boycott. I don't remember if the show's ratings went up or not -- they probably did -- but they backed off the nudity. This is the same thing. They're looking for an apology or something; for Beck to back off the hateful rhetoric.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/28/2009 08:07 AM     
  Ben  
 
You bring up a good point as well it could go against Beck more viewers tuning in, but like you have said here many times and me and others have said. People tend to listen to the media so a majority will mnost likely end up believing everything he has to say.

I was just reading the comments on the LA TImes site and I read in one of the comments Gieco insurance is going to be advertsing on Beck. I actually admire them for it becuase it goes agasint the groove they are standing up for themselves and not backing down.

The way I look at it boycott these places they wont lose any sales becuase a majority of the people who start the boycot will end up buying the products from those people anyway.

Like I said give it a few months you will slowly see the advertisers come back and take advantage of the increased ratings its the way business works.

I think we all really know the end result here. More people will tune in, more people will believe him.

I personally think in the end it will end up hurting the democratic party and color of change. I bet you w/the ratings increase color of change will start to back down very slowly
 
  by: willyshawker     08/28/2009 08:15 AM     
  Curious  
 
I don't understand why people can call protesters racist and that's OK, but if someone calls the President racist that's not OK? Hell, people called Bush racist. Why is Obama untouchable?
 
  by: tre_03   08/28/2009 10:05 AM     
  @tre  
 
Well, some of the protesters were carrying racist signs. Obama didn't say anything that was racist.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/28/2009 05:24 PM     
  @willy  
 
Geico isn't "standing up for themselves" -- they want to advertise on a show with high ratings and they don't feel this is going to hurt their brand. They didn't stand up for anything or buck any trends; they're just making a business decision.

I don't know -- neither of us can truly say how this will all turn out. If conventional wisdom really held true, I think McCain/Palin would have won the last election, because conventional wisdom held that the politics of fear works, and conventional wisdom was that a black man couldn't win the presidency.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/28/2009 05:27 PM     
  all  
 
I think his ratings are improving because people always enjoy a good comedy.
 
  by: teracuda   08/28/2009 06:29 PM     
  @tre_03 & teracuda  
 
"I don't understand why people can call protesters racist and that's OK, but if someone calls the President racist that's not OK? Hell, people called Bush racist. Why is Obama untouchable?"

well, because bush (at least the admin is not bush himself) can be evidenced as racist... remember things like barring tens of thousands of blacks from voting in florida, because they typically vote democrat, and appointing condeleeza rice doesn't exactly negate that... nor does it negate what is essentially his holy war (against arabs) that eric prince is still on the forefront of... then there was katrina which the blacks were very pissed off about for the presidents lack of help, though more of the onus really should be on the state level, but that still doesn't excuse his "9/11-my pet goat" type response to a major natural disaster

beck called obama a racist for appointing a latino women to the supreme court (a group dominated solely by white, and almost exclusively white males at that).

@teracuda

"all
I think his ratings are improving because people always enjoy a good comedy."

actually probably not so much... there is a movement that alex jones is leading to protect beck's free speech, though unjustly calling a person racist SHOULD have consecquences, say for instance i went into a store owned by blacks and they kept calling me racist, should i still do business with them... no... so why would should the sponsors... and similarly people have a right to call up beck's sponsors and tell them they want buy their products until they stop sponsoring beck, thats their right as consumers, though in my opinion people went too far about beck's comment as stupid and ignorant as it was.

and its not like it should have surprised anyone that extremism would come from fox.
 
  by: HAVOC666     08/28/2009 07:19 PM     
  @Ben_Reily  
 
Always trying to bring someone down that doesn't agree with you. Call them nuts, over the top, anything you can think of to make your opinion sound more reasonable. And all the while, it seems like conservatives mostly limit their activities to talking about current issues, and trying to explain why they take issue with current proposed solutions. Liberals, however, seem more prone to action before their plan is well thought out. Must be the "heat of the moment" kind of thing that happens to young people.

I, myself, try to listen to both sides. But in my experience, when I'm having a discussion with someone, sometimes a heated discussion, about health care reform or some other current issue, it seems like nobody on the liberal side of the fence can fully explain why they think that their ideas are superior. One of the smartest people I know on the liberal side of the fence could only say that things need to change because what we have been doing just isn't working. He really can't explain what needs to change or anything as specific as that.

You can't just run experiments on a national level, like Obama and his liberal pals in the Senate and the House want to do. None of these liberal idea seem to have come from a thoughtful mind. Only a panicked mind that is reaching for the first solution that presents itself.

Calling Obama racist may not be entirely accurate. However, it seems to be perfectly acceptable for Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Obama's good pastor to call everyone else racist. Is it not ok simply because it's Glenn Beck who said it? Maybe it would be better if someone on the liberal side said it instead? Would that make it all better? Would you just fall into line and agree with it then? It's amazing how defensive people get when their idols are blasphemed. And make no mistake about it: you have been defending our president and his policies without fail, no matter how kooky or unworkable they are, and that makes you something on the order of an apostle.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   08/28/2009 07:26 PM     
  @TIU  
 
With all due respect, how does the venom we've heard from conservatives toward Obama and the Democrats -- calling them socialists, Marxists, comparing them to the Nazis and Hitler, some calling Obama the Antichrist, hanging one Democratic congressman in effigy, making up a mock tombstone for another Democratic congressman, calling for them to be hunted, or looking for a "great white hope," or expressing pride in being a "right-wing terrorist," or praising someone who says that, etc. -- count as, like you say, "mostly limit(ing) their activities to talking about current issues, and trying to explain why they take issue with current proposed solutions"?

It sounds to me like a lot of people who are speaking for the right these days are consumed with rage. I know a lot of people who are very afraid that someone else is going to be hurt or killed by someone who is angry with the direction America has taken under Obama.

One other thing -- just about everything we do is an experiment, in the sense that we're constantly reviewing programs and systems to see whether they work or not. For people like me, the fact that health insurance companies can deny you a policy because you have a pre-existing condition, or boot you out of your current policy when you get sick, is unacceptable and really needs to be reformed. In other words, the experiment of allowing health insurance corporations to operate without regulations to keep them from doing things like that is failing the American people, and it's time to try something else, something we believe will work better.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/28/2009 07:38 PM     
  @Ben_Reily  
 
To address the first part of your response:

Instituting a policy in which the government runs the banks, major industries, and insurance companies really is socialism.

Here's the definition: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/...

That's from Princeton University. You can argue with them about their definition of the word, but I believe that is the one that is commonly used. If you have a different take on nationalized ownership of these businesses is, then by all means present it here, or stop denying that it's socialist.

As to the Hitler reference, I don't know who spoke this, but I can make a comparison. Hitler did run the car company known as Volkswagon. Break the word apart and it literally translates to "People's Automobile". Hitler took over control of this company so that everyone in his country could offord to have a car, hence the name.

I do disagree with all of the hate that is directed towards Obama. After all, I really do believe that he is just a puppet for the left-wing special interests. I don't hold any ill will towards him in particular. It's just the general idea that the left wing may start to take this country down the road that was taken by Stalin, Lennon, Marx, and Mussolini that I have a problem with. Those systems of government have been proven to fail, and I don't want any part of that. The government needs to be limited to only those functions that are necessary. Right now, they are trying to overstep their bounds by far.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   08/28/2009 08:01 PM     
  @TIU  
 
I just think it's a bit disingenuous to look at the government bailing out a few banks and auto companies and then describe that as a socialist agenda. I think if Obama and the Democrats were really trying to nationalize industry, you'd see a lot more evidence of it.

For example, the government would take over GM permanently, not own it until the day comes it can operate without assistance again, if this was really part of an agenda of socialism. The same thing would go for the banks, all of which can pay back their TARP funds and no longer be partly owned by the government.

Town hall protesters have equated "Obamacare" with Hitler's systematic slaughter of 6 million Jews. If that's not unfocused, unthinking rage, I don't know what it is.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/28/2009 08:22 PM     
  @theidiotupstairs  
 
obama isn't a socialist... he like most presidents before him in the last century have been facists, not socialist, and moreover basically corporate owned themselves... the biggest reasons why its not called what it is, is because for decade "facist" became anti-western slander, and because of the illusion created by the two-party system (which is really just a one party system with two wings), while facism tends to only have one party that come to power and simply remain in power... facisms new name has become "third way" politics

socialism would be a vast improvement for "the people", hell even communism (non-stalist communism, such as true marxist communism; which most people simply don't understand and have been taught over generations to fear, which is also the basis of modern socialism) would be a step forward... facism is about the most corrupt system of governance there is, yet many people have simply come to accept facism as normal, and hence label any deviation the norms of politics and economics is labeled as socialism or communism, even if inaccurately so, as is often the case when the move is to a greater degree of facism... namely because people cannot reconcile that they live in a facist society and so and so lash out at every direction but the one they should be; the direction of facism.

also hitler's perversion of socialism WAS facism (and a far cry from what socialism actually is)... nationalism is how facism always starts... and moreover facist nations are almost always imperialist nations; its one of the defining characteristics of 20th century facism, facist oppose weakening militaries and believe that the nation must always have a "warrior mentality".


if anything the US is moving away from socialism... not towards it... the closest version of soacialism the US is moving to is nazism, which is facism, not genuine socialism, and moreover most people's gripe about socialism stems from the concept of nazism being true socialism rather than a perversion, which was used to get into power and instute an extreme form of facism.

here's an excellecent quote that brillantly defines socialism:

"Socialism cannot exist without a change in consciousness resulting in a new fraternal attitude toward humanity, both at an individual level, within the societies where socialism is being built or has been built, and on a world scale, with regard to all peoples suffering from imperialist oppression." - Che Guevara, Marxist revolutionary, 1965
 
  by: HAVOC666     08/28/2009 09:00 PM     
  @ben reilly  
 
"I just think it's a bit disingenuous to look at the government bailing out a few banks and auto companies and then describe that as a socialist agenda."

it is in some respect... but that corporate socialism, not typical socialism.

and in truth its not really socialism since in reality corpoartions influence and control the government not the other way around... in reality most laws today don't revolve around the safety/protection of society but rather the protection of corporate profits (like the DMCA; a prime example) and stability (hence "too big too fail").
 
  by: HAVOC666     08/28/2009 09:11 PM     
  Socialism vs Communism vs Fascism  
 
I think that the actual definitions of the words might help here:

(n) fascism (a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism))

(n) socialism (a political theory advocating state ownership of industry)

(n) communism (a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership)

I just took the first definitions of Socialism and Communism.

I have to argue that true communism would work, if you could get people to get up off their lazy butts and work for the greater good of their community, instead of working only for themselves. I don't think you could talk me into that. My immediate family is much more important to me than even my next door neighbor, so I will always provide for them before I give a single cent to any charity.

As to socialism, the definition would have the government owning business, which, once again goes against my need to provide for my immediate family above all others.

Fascism allows for a dictatorship, which in turn allows for a hierarchy, which "officially" we do not have here. However, when the president can dismiss a high-level executive from a major corporation without a shareholder vote, I have to wonder.

Here's another definition for you:

(n) democracy, republic, commonwealth (a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them)
(n) republic (a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch) "the head of state in a republic is usually a president"

This should be the word that best describes our nation. The people get to choose who is running the government, and can oust anyone who abuses the powers that are given. However, as proven in the election of 2000, where Al Gore got more votes, and was still not elected president, this is not always the case. Don't get me wrong: I am very glad that Al Gore was not in office when the U.S. was attacked on 9/11/2001. I can only imagine how many more times we would have been attacked again since then, using his soft-handed policies.

So we are still ostensibly a democratic republic, although with all of the ideas that this current congress has of bans on guns and limiting freedom of speech, I sometimes wonder how long we will continue to be such.

Tax cuts while a major war is going on is not a good idea. But pushing a plan that could raise taxes by as much as 22% during a recession isn't exceptionally bright either. The only ones who benefit from this are the ones in power. They get more control over our daily lives, and ultimately more control over our health.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   08/28/2009 09:38 PM     
  TIU, Do You Think The Morons Really Care About  
 
The Meaning Of The Words and Phrases They Toss About.

They just grab sound bytes and mimic them.

You are trying to educate a tape recorder.

But thanks for trying anyway.
 
  by: ichi     08/28/2009 10:28 PM     
  @theidiotupstairs  
 
"(n) fascism (a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)"

yeah but democracy like the US's two party system is in reality a on party system wwith both wings under the same ownership; corporations.

"(n) socialism (a political theory advocating state ownership of industry)"

of certian industries... name vital ones like energy and healthcare, not of general production.

"(n) communism (a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership)"

not really , but that what most of us in the west believe... not marxist communism, marxist communism is only against bourgeois (the wealthy, the land owning classes) not the prolitarians (the workers or small shop owners) and promotes a classless society

"I have to argue that true communism would work, if you could get people to get up off their lazy butts and work for the greater good of their community, instead of working only for themselves."

i agree... infact i would even take that one step futher and advocate a resource based economy... here a quote about such an economy:

"The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

This approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated.

Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such."

"As to socialism, the definition would have the government owning business, which, once again goes against my need to provide for my immediate family above all others."

but that only applies the the government has power and influence over the corporations rather than the other way around as in the case of businessmen turn politicans, or corporate lobbying.

if we're going to call this perversion socialism then it needs to be specified that its corporate-socialism, not genuine socialism.

"Fascism allows for a dictatorship, which in turn allows for a hierarchy, which "officially" we do not have here. However, when the president can dismiss a high-level executive from a major corporation without a shareholder vote, I have to wonder."

lol yeah ... "offically"... its not that should make you wonder esspecially since they BEGGED for a government bailout (the same people that lobbies for this and sponspor the politicans in the first place), its that no matter whose in power the agenda on the base level is always the same, this is the nature of shadow governments (even hitler and the nazi's were only a front; vril society and thule society).. we simply call this one "the new world order" because their agenda is truely global, most superpowers thoughout history have been run in the shadows, the US is no exception.

"This should be the word that best describes our nation."

your right it *should*, but it doesn't, democracy would imply that anyone can run... they can't... it would also imply the the people hold the power of the country, they don't corporations and industrial complexes do; this is inherent in facism, not democracy .... the only real power the people have is puppet1 or puppet2, and the same puppeteer has its hand up both their asses. technically they could vote in a ron paul type... but that won't ever happen while the two main parties; the only two that will ever be elected, are corporate owned, operated and influenced... and thats just flat out undemocratic... its facism with the illusion of democracy.

its still a republic but it a corporate owned republic... with some exceptions, some people just can't be bought yet are still popular enough to get into a lower level offices, like ron paul and jesse ventura.

also as far as heirachy goes, ALL governments have heirachies... or i nthe corporate world heirachies are are an absolute truth.

as for gore
i'm not sure 9/11 would have even happened at all if gore was elected, at the very least i doubt his response would be, keep reading my pet goat its only the country under attack...
 
  by: HAVOC666     08/28/2009 10:49 PM     
  @theidiotupstairs  
 
and beyond that since cheney wouldn't have been in office he wouldn't have been able to demand that NORAD stand down.

but again since both parties are really one and the same aside from only small things, this might just be irrelevent or perhaps it would have happened either way.. but it still don't buy the offical story of rogue terrorists.

but no matter how you look at 9/11 the bush admin did at very least facilitate the attack and have links to 9/11 both before and during the event, whether by allowing it for political capital or by design.

the US fell decades ago to facism, infact i think the year was 1933 when the US went bankrupt under FDR.... they just haven't yet gotten to the totalitarianism part yet, and its happening so slowing that most people don't even notice, yet when you look at the big picture over decade its quite clear... technically the US populas (and there land under eminent domain) was pledged as collateral (just like farm cattle) to pay off their national debt, which should be abundently clear will NEVER happen and only perpetually get worse, esspecially so long as the federal reserve is a private corpoartion.
 
  by: HAVOC666     08/28/2009 11:07 PM     
  @ Ben_Reilly  
 
Beck is going to have to try to rein in some of his nuttier impulses or he *will* find himself out of a job no matter how many people watch him.

I don't know Ben, fox has no intention of letting Beck go, and if you look at the ratings below, fox outperforms every other news source. Where would you rather advertise? After seeing the ratings perhaps you should be getting your news from Fox. An overwhelming percentage of people do. Wonder why?
I don't think Beck is worried. I watched him for three days now, seems to be pulling more and more people. Bottom line, Wallmart two years ago would not allow the employees to say Merry Xmas. The following year Wallmart changed their mind when they realized Muslims didn't but Xmas gifts and their sales dropped. After Becks remark advertiser had calls complaining but now his following is growing.They will be back, you can bank on it.

Total Day
FNC – 1,374,000 viewers
CNN – 711,000 viewers
MSNBC –506,000 viewers
CNBC – 217,000 viewers
HLN – 300,000 viewers

P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,667,000viewers
CNN— 1,187,000 viewers
MSNBC –984,000 viewers
CNBC – 241,000 viewers
HLN – 606,000viewers

Beck is going to have to try to rein in some of his nuttier impulses or he *will* find himself out of a job no matter how many people watch him.
 
  by: Hellblazer     08/29/2009 04:18 AM     
  @Hellblazer  
 
"fox has no intention of letting Beck go"

Can you give me a name at Fox News that I can call to verify that information? Or a link to a news article on it?

Otherwise, we'll have a bit less rectal communication from you, thanks.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/29/2009 07:37 AM     
  also  
 
Check this out -- I think he's seriously losing it.

http://www.youtube.com/...
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/29/2009 07:43 AM     
  Ben  
 
do you have the inside scoop they are going to fire him?

Get real He is here to stay and spew some more garbage and occasionally say something that makes sense.

Your just pissed because the plan of Color of Change and the liberals didnt go as planned. You guys figured he would be taken off the air I laugh at that notion.

 
  by: willyshawker     08/29/2009 09:01 AM     
  Ben  
 
he does look a mess so in that aspect Color of Change has affected him.

He does got a point tired of being a sheep most Americans are nowadays. Believe what the meida and government tells them becuase we all know they wont lie

sarcasam if you cant tell

An Oligarchy is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royal, wealth, intellectual, family, military.

The sad thing I can see that happening be back to sqaure one in this country the whole reason we split from Britian could be making a comeback what a thought.

The thing is I actually like that idea which makes it even sadder.

If we go back to it eventually people will look back in history and follow the actions of our forefathers and we can start all over again w/the blue print of how not to fark it up
 
  by: willyshawker     08/29/2009 09:07 AM     
  @willyshawker  
 
One thing that I've found in the time that Ben has been here is that you really can't speak reason to him and expect him to understand. His mind is completely closed to anything that comes from the evil right-wing, and he will follow any kind of garbage that the left-wing spews, without even thinking about it. If it comes from a Democrat's mouth, it's gospel to him, even when the holes in the ideas are pointed out to him. He's a complete believer in health care reform, no matter what kind of "reform" that might be, just because the right-wingers won't just blindly accept it, and it represents some kind of "change". He hates Glenn Beck because, along with criticizing the right-wing politicians, he also criticizes the left-wingers too, and that's intolerable to him.

I am willing to listen to every side of an argument, including the health care reform debate. However, when the left-wingers are trying to push this massive thing through in a rush, seemingly because they really don't want debate about all of the points in it, then I'm against it. This is another reason that he hates Glenn Beck. Glenn has had his people pull this whole bill apart, and try to figure out what it is that the Democrats don't want Americans to debate, and then he's raised a debate about those points. Of course, this has made Glenn the target of just about every hard-core liberal in the country. However, instead of actually listening to his points, and arguing back against him with valid point of their own, all they can do is say that he's some kind of nut-job extreme right-winger.

It's really easy to find someone in an off moment, when they are unprepared or tired or just plain exasperated. I catch pieces of Glenn's show when I'm on my way to lunch or back to the office. I'm not an avid listener, and I won't blindly follow him. I will at least listen to his points, though, and try to figure out what it is that he's taking exception to. Glenn has a lot of listeners, so there must be something valid in what he's saying or nobody would listen to him.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   08/29/2009 07:23 PM     
  @theidiotupstairs  
 
"Glenn has a lot of listeners, so there must be something valid in what he's saying or nobody would listen to him."

or he's telling them what they want to hear... which is what fox is to the right...

why is it that they only see corruption under democrats and not republicans...

its not because they're "fair and balanced" its because they're right wing and telling those people exactly what they want to hear...

hell glen beck even admitted he was for healthcare reform after he took a trip to the hospital... but then he started working for fox and was completely against it.

like his comment in the video ben gave us where's he's talking about the US becoming an oligarchy under obama... yet nothing about the fact this happen back in 1933, or arguably 1913.

seems fox only noticed this happening now under obama... maybe even because he is the first black president, who knows.... though in my opinion they just have a major axe to grind against democrats and let everything the republicans do slide or even justify it.

and as a result most of their viewer think they are the best news in town, and every other news agency is "far left liberals" when in reality fox is the least objective most inaccurate news source in north america (and thats saying something), they've been caught and taken to court for lying in the news (the court actually sided with fox's "right" to lie about/fabricate the news).

though even CNN has fabricated the news on occassion like in 1990 for the gulf war, the same person (Charles Jaco) later went to work for fox.

but hell fox even help steal an election.

so while glenn beck and fox news in general may have alot of viewers/listeners that doesn't in any way mean they are good sources of information. as people like hellblazer seem to think in saying perhaps we should all get the news from fox.... maybe, if there's not a better source, and there almos t always is if its newsworthy in the first place and not just a fluff peice or propaganda peice.

basically fox news is like a broken clock... even they're right twice a day...lol
 
  by: HAVOC666     08/29/2009 08:03 PM     
  @theidiot  
 
I agree, Ben isnt open to anything other than what the democrats say. Everything is gospel to him just like you said.

Ben is one of the worst people on here to me it seems everyone else is open to different views but him.

I like Ben and I repect him but I feel he is a liberal sheep that refuses to believe anything anybody other than the liberals tell him.

I respect him for standing behind what he believes in but he will never ever admit he is wrong on anything. Its his way or the highway.

Facts could show Obama robbed an old lady on the street and he would make an excuse like we arent paying Obama enough so he had to rob the lady to get food its not his fault, Bush made him do it. Ben I'm sorry to say that but thats the image you put forth.

Its always an excuse w/you. You are open to absolutely nothing. You have tunnel vision. The democrats are never wrong and the purist thing in the world. In Bens mind the democrats are God and you must worship them or he calls you a bigot and a racist.

Like I said Ben I respect you and all but you have tunnel vision going on
 
  by: willyshawker     08/29/2009 08:09 PM     
  Havoc  
 
you got a good point. I remember when Beck said he was for reform but now he is against it quite sad if you act me. Stick to your convivtions dont change becuase you go work for someone else.

I also agree we have been going down this road for along time and all of the sudden Fox has a problem with it. Come on now Fox thats showing your agenda right there.

I find the media all of it becoming a major fear tool when it comes to everything just not politics.
 
  by: willyshawker     08/29/2009 08:12 PM     
  @willy, TIU  
 
We're getting to a point where we're not going to be able to talk to one another any more. TIU, in particular, I would never dream of writing up some sort of profile about you and posting it for others' amusement. I'm getting kind of tired of being you guys' punching bag.

If you want to talk, that's great. That can be productive. And I think you often want to hear what I have to say about an issue. But if you're just going to demonize me and attack me, we can't have a conversation.

I'm also tired of having two or three of you gang up on me. If I'm having a debate with one person, you don't all have to jump in and start attacking me from all sides. I don't know if your little group is trying to drive me away or anything, but it's not going to work.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/29/2009 08:15 PM     
  @willy  
 
Stop doing that, please. It really annoys me. Stop saying things like: "In Bens mind the democrats are God and you must worship them or he calls you a bigot and a racist." It's not true, and it's highly confrontational and ugly. Just stop, please.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/29/2009 08:16 PM     
  Ben  
 
sending u a private message
 
  by: willyshawker     08/29/2009 08:20 PM     
  Huh ?  
 
Publicly stating that you are sending a Private Message.

Shhh, its a secret.
 
  by: ichi     08/29/2009 08:58 PM     
  @willyshawker  
 
Don't you think it's a little steep to tell someone that they could witness a crime and come up with an excuse for the offender?

Isn't it possible that, if your old-lady-robbed-by-Obama story played out, that Ben would be appalled and no longer feel that supporting Obama would be the right thing? Okay, so I'm taking your statement a bit more serious than you may have intended, but that's my intention. You're sort of being just as extreme as you proclaim Ben to be.

Besides, what kind of world do you want? One where we all agree and share all of the same opinions, since all of our brains would be wired to the same, predestined path of logic? Welcome the different points of view. Even the stubborn ones.
 
  by: Dayron   08/30/2009 09:44 PM     
  @Dayron  
 
Thanks, but I think he was just particularly frustrated with me when he said that.
 
  by: l´anglais     08/30/2009 11:37 PM     
  Ben  
 
why did you go back to your old name? Just a login error or are u using that now
 
  by: willyshawker     08/30/2009 11:50 PM     
  @l'anglais  
 
Yeah, guesso. I've been there, I suppose.
 
  by: Dayron   08/31/2009 12:20 AM     
  It's a login error  
 
I was looking for a link somebody left me on my old account on a different computer and accidentally stayed logged in.

By the way, just dug up this video -- check out Beck debating himself on health care: http://www.thedailyshow.com/...
 
  by: l´anglais     08/31/2009 01:45 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com