Beck to bring “Common Sense” to Idaho
Don @ IdahoRadioNews | July 6, 2009Syndicated radio personality and Fox News host Glenn Beck will once again bring his comedy tour to the Gem State — this time as a benefit for the Tri-County Sheriff’s Association – a group of 17 sheriff’s offices across Eastern Idaho. Beck will perform at the Idaho Falls Civic Auditorium, according to the Standard-Journal. The show is set for this Saturday at 2pm.
Why does Beck need to go on a comedy tour? His radio and TV shows ARE comedy.
As the “third most listented too” talk show in America, he must be doing something right. Beck does have a great sense of humor. Its fitting he goes on the road to take his message to the people that want to hear what he has to say. If you are going to have to take “Strong Medince” isnt it best you take it with a spoonfull (or in the cast of the current situation- A semi-truck load full) of sugar!!!!
“Beck does have a great sense of humor.”
Yes, clowns tend to have a good sense of humor. Ronald McDonald, however, stays out of politics.
I’m waiting for the Bill O’Reilly “Tour of Reason”. Or the Sean Hannity “Road Trip of Intellect”. Maybe Rush Limbaugh could do a “Ride for Ridiculously Awesome Political Stuff”. Ah, the contradictions.
Political atheists are hard to find these days……
Ronald McDonald never had a $30,000,000.00 a year radio deal. Come to think of it, “The” hasn’t either! I hate that so many hide behind their blog-o-noms. I want you to know that Beck was signed to Premiere Networks by a good friend of mine who happens to be one of the most liberal guys on the planet… Beck is THAT good! And as for the clowns in politics comment… there’s an Obama-Biden joke in the wings on that one!
Nice rebuttal Jim….Very Nice.
“Ronald McDonald never had a $30,000,000.00 a year radio deal.”
I guess I don’t get your point. Because Beck has a big contract, that somehow “proves” that his point of view is correct?
Sorry, but the fake crying, the pouring of “gasoline” on a stooge during his show and the fact that Beck told an interviewer that he studied the movie “Network” for tips on how to do his show (among other things) tell me that the persona he presents on this shows is NOT sincere. He is simply not to be taken seriously as a political pundit.
Maybe the Libs should have their own talk show network? Oh wait…they did and nobody listened. Never mind.
“Maybe the Libs should have their own talk show network? Oh wait…they did and nobody listened. Never mind.”
I assume you’re referring to Air America. For what it’s worth, it still exists. It’s been plagued by very bad managements, unfortunately. A.A. seems not have learned from experience (Al Franken) that hiring television personalities is not the ticket to success in radio (I predict catastrophe for their new Montel Williams show). Other left-leaning talk hosts not associated with Air America, however, are doing well nationally. Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz are two examples. Thom Hartmann beats Sean Hannity in some markets where they go head-to-head.
I realize this is a radio-oriented website but I would point out that the size of one’s contract or their ratings do not in any way prove that their point of view or presentation are correct or logical.
OK – still on topic mostly here… but please help me not let this degenerate into a pointless “dems versus repubs” debate. There are lots of websites for that… :)
“I realize this is a radio-oriented website but I would point out that the size of one’s contract or their ratings do not in any way prove that their point of view or presentation are correct or logical.”
I beg to differ. Ratings prove exactly that. Big rating=Big audience. His large Nation-wide following would indicate he’s doing something right. I’d be willing to bet his National cume is far and away larger than Schultz, Miller and Hartmann combined. But don’t let facts derail your rant.
“Ratings prove exactly that. Big rating=Big audience.”
Actually, due to the fallacy of Arbitron these days, all that proves is that the people that like them have home phones, and since a higher and higher number of people these days don’t….
Well, all I’m saying is sampling size doesn’t work the way it used to anymore.
What I said:
“I realize this is a radio-oriented website but I would point out that the size of one’s contract or their ratings do not in any way prove that their point of view or presentation are correct or logical.”
What Knows Don’s Dad said:
“I beg to differ. Ratings prove exactly that. Big rating=Big audience.”
Um, how is that a refutation to what I said?
Using your apparent “logic,” Father Coughlin who had a HUGE audience (MUCH larger than anyone in radio today has) back in the 30’s, was right about his anti-Semitism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Coughlin
Notwithstanding, whether right or wrong, Beck is great at what he does. As a political moderate, I have yet to hear a left leaning host that moves an audience the way Beck, Hannity or Linbaugh does. Which I guess would add to the difficulty when the liberal political perspectives tend to take away freedoms and finances. Personally, there are few conservative host that really pull it off… Just listen to the major market talent that fills for Hannity and Limbaugh … not really syndicatable material if you ask me. But then who does?
“The”, I know that it’s folks like you that would love to see the Fairness Doctrine enacted for all the reasons I stated above. No competition for the liberal minset. Hopefully, the deep pockets of the capitalists making money off the conservative hosts will prevail.
“Using your apparent “logic,” Father Coughlin who had a HUGE audience (MUCH larger than anyone in radio today has) back in the 30’s, was right about his anti-Semitism.”
Let me see if I’ve got this straight. You’re comparing the audience that Coughlin had in the 30’s when there were what? Maybe 4 nationwide radio networks to choose from? No network television, no cable networks, no internet radio, no dozens of syndicated radio networks and no podcasting and you’re comparing that with Beck’s audience today? Really?
All those choices for people in the 21st Century and Beck still has huge numbers nationally. Wouldn’t that indicate that his message has some validity?
I’m simply no match for your “apparent logic”. Thanks for a stellar example of Lib disinformation and intellectual dishonesty.
“Notwithstanding, whether right or wrong, Beck is great at what he does. As a political moderate, I have yet to hear a left leaning host that moves an audience the way Beck, Hannity or Linbaugh does.”
Actually, I pretty much agree with you on that. The big problem is that lefty talk hosts tend to be, as my wife puts it, “professors, not personalities.” Well-intentioned as it may be, that approach doesn’t really work on talk radio. Ultimately, it’s about ENTERTAINMENT, not education.
“The’, I know that it’s folks like you that would love to see the Fairness Doctrine enacted for all the reasons I stated above.”
I’ll make you a deal. If you don’t try to interpret my thoughts, I won’t assume there are any in your head.
“Let me see if I’ve got this straight. You’re comparing the audience that Coughlin had in the 30’s when there were what? Maybe 4 nationwide radio networks to choose from?”
You managed to miss my point entirely. Since you previously said that a large audience meant that the host’s point of view must be correct, I responded that, using your “logic,” Father Coughlin MUST have been right about anti-Semitism since his audience was so large.
Here’s the original exchange again, so you can review:
Me:
“I would point out that the size of one’s contract or their ratings do not in any way prove that their point of view or presentation are correct or logical.”
You:
“I beg to differ. Ratings prove exactly that. Big rating=Big audience.”
I still fail to see how that is a logical refutation of what I said, but you obviously intended it to be one. If Beck’s few million listeners “prove” that his point of view is correct, Coughlin’s much larger audience must therefore “prove” that HE was right.
http://tinyurl.com/Beck-is-a-tool
I agree with ‘The’ regarding his interpretation of what was written…having a large audience does NOT prove anybody’s statements to be true.
However, I do not believe that Beck is or ought to be considered a political commentator…regardless of how much time he devotes to it…he is first and foremost an entertainer–you don’t have to believe a single thing he talks about–or Hannity, Limbaugh or anybody else regardless of which side of the aisle they lean towards. I find it rather humorous how Beck is constantly compared to Hannity & Limbaugh as though he is a Republican, even though he ISN’T, and I have heard him be as critical of ‘W’ as I believe almost anyone has been. If you disagree, you simply do not know Beck as well as you may think.
I like Glenn Beck because he entertains me–and he is far better when he is trying to do that then when he is spouting politics. I find the attention given to Beck’s so-called ‘crying’ proof that modern journalism has gone the way of the Dodo. Somehow I doubt he is THAT good of an actor to pull it off–but even if he were, why is there SO much coverage? Writing about it and/or covering it as MSNBC did only serves to hand over more listeners and viewers to Beck…along with showing how pathetic their journalisitc integrity really is. If that is all they have as ammunition, how sad. If you have legitimate reasons to call into question what he talks about, bring it up…but to publicly ridicule and call into question on national television a man’s love for his country is honestly just unacceptable not to mention petty.
I’m pretty sure that Glenn Beck could care less if you agree with him or not–just as long as you listen and watch…and as popular as he is right now, he has no reason to do anything different.
“I’m pretty sure that Glenn Beck could care less if you agree with him or not–just as long as you listen and watch…and as popular as he is right now, he has no reason to do anything different.”
I’m quite sure that you’re 100% right about that. It’s something that I keep trying to explain to people when they talk about guys like Beck and O’Reilly–it’s a mistake to automatically assume sincerity with them. At the end of the day, it isn’t about being correct or accurate for them; it’s about getting a very large paycheck. That’s why I find it baffling when I see people quoting them as if they are to be taken seriously. They’re every bit as “real” as professional wrestling.
I am probably wrong…but didnt the Coughlin you are referring too….Broadcast from a radio station south of the Mexican border with “slightly” powerful radio station thereby allowing the signal to blast into Fly Over Country like no ones business…. I dont remember reading about him being on any “network” at the time… Or maybe the guy I am thinking of was the one who used to perform surgery on men where he implanted goat testicals under the promise it was going to “improve performance” Boy those were the daze….
Someone help me on this one for all others as well….
‘The’ said, “At the end of the day, it isn’t about being correct or accurate for them; it’s about getting a very large paycheck.”
‘The’ also said, “I’ll make you a deal. If you don’t try to interpret my thoughts, I won’t assume there are any in your head.”
In true liberal fashion, you want to make rules for everyone else that don’t apply to you… Beck and O’Reilly (and the other mainstream conservative hosts) have the most complete research teams in the media. The reason they are so successful is exactly that… they have valid information and the deliver it well. Come out from behind your ‘The’ and argue like a man (or woman if that be the case)!
“Beck and O’Reilly (and the other mainstream conservative hosts) have the most complete research teams in the media. The reason they are so successful is exactly that… they have valid information and the deliver it well.”
Oh, like when Beck goes off on Senators for not asking the Supreme Court nominee questions on a day when they weren’t scheduled to ask questions (see the link I posted above)? I guess his crack research team was off that day.
“In true liberal fashion, you want to make rules for everyone else that don’t apply to you.”
What “rules” have I put on others that I don’t apply to myself? Please elaborate.
“I am probably wrong…but didnt the Coughlin you are referring too….Broadcast from a radio station south of the Mexican border”
“Or maybe the guy I am thinking of was the one who used to perform surgery on men where he implanted goat testicals under the promise it was going to ‘improve performance’”
I’m pretty sure that Coughlin was on one of the major radio networks. The “doctor” you’re referring to was “Goat Gland” Brinkley. He went to Mexico to broadcast when the Feds starting cracking down on him. If I’m not confusing him with someone else, his original American station was KFKB (“Kansas First, Kansas Best”).
Wasn’t it cool when call letters actually stood for something?
My dear friend Jim writes:
“Beck and O’Reilly (and the other mainstream conservative hosts) have the most complete research teams in the media. The reason they are so successful is exactly that… they have valid information and the deliver it well.”
With all due respect, ANYONE can “prove” any information academically with research. Beck and O’Reilly have great research teams that look for TARGETED information that is of interest to their audience. In essence, they look for red meat. In all honesty, I do the same for my own talk show. I research a topic based on my audience interest and what will likely best get them riled-up with the phones ringing. It doesn’t make ME nor the guys at Faux Noise right. It means we are presenting what is meaningful to our demographic.
Valid information is all subjective. When it all boils down to it, we’re all clowns and entertainers, albeit some more serious than others. Taking Rush or his ilk for anything more than that is ridiculous.
The said: “I’m quite sure that you’re 100% right about that. It’s something that I keep trying to explain to people when they talk about guys like Beck and O’Reilly–it’s a mistake to automatically assume sincerity with them…”
That may be the first reasonable thing you’ve said. You shouldn’t automatically assume anybody’s political diatribe is sincere. Listen to what they have to say and get off your lazy butt and do the research to confirm or negate their message instead of forming your political views based on North End bumper stickers.
The bad news for you is that advice applies to your political ilk as well. That is of course unless you prefer to just kick them all off the air with the “fairness” doctrine.
Any question about Beck being an “entertainer/clown?” Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3yn3SelVCs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2009%2F07%2F17%2Fglenn-beck-radio-freakout_n_237499.html&feature=player_embedded
“The bad news for you is that advice applies to your political ilk as well. That is of course unless you prefer to just kick them all off the air with the “fairness” doctrine.”
Wow, you’re going to hurt yourself, jumping to conclusions like that. You have no idea what my “political ilk” is. And why do you assume I’d be in favor of a Fairness Doctrine?
Feel free to put MORE thoughts in my head so you can argue against them. It’s fun to watch.
“Feel free to put MORE thoughts in my head”
So many punch lines…so little time.