49 replies to this topic

[wedjat]

I find it hard to take anyone seriously who tries to compare Beck to Maddow. On the one hand we have a histrionic cry-baby who uses a chalk-board complete with KG pictures of horses and paddocks, and love of word repetition to try and make a point being compared to a Rhodes Scholar. Um.....no, doesn't work for me. Beck should be on QVC, I'm sure they have plenty of shit to sell there.

But Maddow is an ELITIST....you know, that fancy edumacation & all.

[Mr. Roboto]

The guy simply went too far. When hundreds of sponsors drop you, there is going to be a problem with upper management. He also had crossed the line with the GOP viewers, with some nutty insinuation that both Bush's were part of some conspiracy theory in the middle east (can't recall exactly, but it was his usual insane shit.)

[Jill]

The guy simply went too far. When hundreds of sponsors drop you, there is going to be a problem with upper management. He also had crossed the line with the GOP viewers, with some nutty insinuation that both Bush's were part of some conspiracy theory in the middle east (can't recall exactly, but it was his usual insane shit.)

That they both strictly prohibited any bombing of Babylon

"Why? Because the Bible tells us that that is the seat right here of power of a global evil empire. Well, that`s also where the 12th imam from Iran is supposedly going to show up! Everybody on this side wants ancient Babylon for their caliphate!"

I really think someone needs to have him committed, because he's obviously spiraling into complete lunacy.

[PERM BANNED]

His viewership is still better than any other network in that time slot, even with a depleted base. Who are they going to get to have equal, let alone better ratings in that slot. The 1.8 million he's getting is pretty damn good, and more than any MSNBC show at any time slot. Hell it's almost better than 2x their 8pm time slot.



If a horse doesn't run as fast as it used to, but still gets first place, you don't shoot it. You keep it around, unless you have something. That's simple business. Beck has no problem with advertisements as any advertiser would gladly take the 2 million Beck viewers over the supposedly angry 800,000 MSNBC viewers who would throw a fit. If your argument held any water, NBC would fire all of the MSNBC newscrew and bring in people who can beat a 5pm news show. When most of your adult workforce isn't in the front door at 5pm and you're still pulling in better numbers than another networks start time slot, someone isn't doing something right.

This post is pretty hilarious, considering Fox did "shoot" Beck's crazy old horse by not renewing his contract. Talk about an argument not holding any water.

Do you know the dealings behind the scene? No, you're jumping on the mediamatters bandwagon celebrating. Which is fine, I did the same thing when Olbermann got fired. But if you're going to call Beck a failure, then all of MSNBC is a failure as well. As none of them had his viewers or ad revenue. But you won't admit that point.

If Democrats are so sure they represent the americna people both in terms of ideology, interests and pure numbers, then why does any medium that has a liberal slant fail continually? Air America and MSNBC are when compared to equivalent media forms, failures. And don't feed some crap about democrats read the newspaper, cause that is a dying medium and on the forum alone, I can probably count on one hand an article from a reputable source like the NY Times online. Everything is from Mother Jones, Mediamatters, Salon or some other leftist site. Yet if someone posts an article from even Fox News, with credible links embeded, it's dismissed as "I couldn't make it past the first sentence."

I don't watch the news much, but when I do it's normally MSNBC, specifically Maddow, so I can see what garbage she is being intellectually dishonest about next. Like her tirade last night about ending public unions being nothing but a move to dismantle the DNC. Nothing about the costs of the unions and whether they actually benefit anyone. None of that was up for debate. Yet some here would champion her as some oracle and tout her academic credentials as some measure of her correctness. Bush graduated from Yale, so I guess everything he said was right. Coulter went to Cornell, so everything she says has to be awesome by that very same logic. Rachel Maddow is smart, I won't dispute that. But she's no more able to come to some objective decision free of partisan politics than anyone else millions check in at to get their opinions spoon fed to them. I'll openly say that Beck is largely an idiot, and to a lesser extent so is Hannity. I like O'Reilly, but some of the shit he says is retarded as well. An example being his justification for a God based on the tides. Yet I rarely if ever hear many people on the left offer the same critiques about the MSNBC crew.

Beck's leaving, that's true. But to suggest he was a failure is being very selective about what you use to come to the conclusion. I wasn't there when they negotiated, and neither were any of you. But common sense says, Beck thought he was worth more than Fox wanted to pay. So he left. It happens all the time. Any other reason is just entertaining fantasy. If Murdoch was truly the evil neo-con some here have portrayed him as, why would he do anything to anger the leader of the nuttiest group of republicans there are? Just doesn't make sense. And until you show me someone who can pull in better numbers then Beck's 2 million, it wasn't about loss of profits for Fox either.

[Zimbochick]

As far as education goes Maddow has a DPhil in Politics from Oxford. I hardly think that's a paltry education. For me Beck is an entertainer, nothing more, nothing less. If that's how people choose to get their political news, then so be it, but he really should be classed in the same category as Stewart or Colbert. I really can't stand O'Reilly, but at least he has interesting perspectives every now and again, in between the snarkiness. Is it really so surprising that they are not renewing this show. Seriously, the guy has many screws loose.

[artcinco]

Beck's situation reminds me about Howard Stern jumping to satellite radio. Stern wanted to have a forum where the FCC could not affect his choice of content. Beck seems to want a forum free from whatever input FOX was giving him and also likely free of the situation of advertisers boycotting his show. Beck still has his radio show which still seems to be popular and also has an internet presence that keeps growing. There is rumor of him doing like Oprah did recently in getting a cable channel. I don't see that happening. But I think Beck is in it for the cash. He likely will make more cash from his radio, internet, and books he writes where he owns more of those ventures than whatever deal he had with FOX. FOX also saw his ratings trajectory combined with the advertiser boycott as a real problem going forward. The rumor is another ex-CNNer Lou Dobbs might fill his shoes. But I also think some of his ratings dropping were the result of the GOP gaining the house. It is harder to play the whole liberal governement is against you when it the Democrats no longer control both houses and the presidency. I am not a Beck fan either but know people who are. I have a neighbor who packed up the wife and kids and went to Beck's rally in DC last year.

[Jill]

Do you know the dealings behind the scene? No, you're jumping on the mediamatters bandwagon celebrating. Which is fine, I did the same thing when Olbermann got fired. But if you're going to call Beck a failure, then all of MSNBC is a failure as well. As none of them had his viewers or ad revenue. But you won't admit that point.

Holy crap you are a dishonest person. Care to explain how it's possible to conclude that I'm "jumping on the Mediamatters bandwagon," when I posted links from The American Conservative and The New Republic?

Go on, explain that to me.

If Democrats are so sure they represent the americna people both in terms of ideology, interests and pure numbers, then why does any medium that has a liberal slant fail continually? Air America and MSNBC are when compared to equivalent media forms, failures. And don't feed some crap about democrats read the newspaper, cause that is a dying medium and on the forum alone, I can probably count on one hand an article from a reputable source like the NY Times online. Everything is from Mother Jones, Mediamatters, Salon or some other leftist site. Yet if someone posts an article from even Fox News, with credible links embeded, it's dismissed as "I couldn't make it past the first sentence."

I don't watch the news much, but when I do it's normally MSNBC, specifically Maddow, so I can see what garbage she is being intellectually dishonest about next. Like her tirade last night about ending public unions being nothing but a move to dismantle the DNC. Nothing about the costs of the unions and whether they actually benefit anyone. None of that was up for debate. Yet some here would champion her as some oracle and tout her academic credentials as some measure of her correctness. Bush graduated from Yale, so I guess everything he said was right. Coulter went to Cornell, so everything she says has to be awesome by that very same logic. Rachel Maddow is smart, I won't dispute that. But she's no more able to come to some objective decision free of partisan politics than anyone else millions check in at to get their opinions spoon fed to them. I'll openly say that Beck is largely an idiot, and to a lesser extent so is Hannity. I like O'Reilly, but some of the shit he says is retarded as well. An example being his justification for a God based on the tides. Yet I rarely if ever hear many people on the left offer the same critiques about the MSNBC crew.

Beck's leaving, that's true. But to suggest he was a failure is being very selective about what you use to come to the conclusion. I wasn't there when they negotiated, and neither were any of you. But common sense says, Beck thought he was worth more than Fox wanted to pay. So he left. It happens all the time. Any other reason is just entertaining fantasy. If Murdoch was truly the evil neo-con some here have portrayed him as, why would he do anything to anger the leader of the nuttiest group of republicans there are? Just doesn't make sense. And until you show me someone who can pull in better numbers then Beck's 2 million, it wasn't about loss of profits for Fox either.

1.) How the hell do you know what I've said or haven't said, if, or when, I've found something stupid or unsupportable being said by any commentator on MSNBC? (Hint: you can't, but you just looooooove to generalize. Dishonest.)

2.) I don't really give two rat's asses how Glenn Beck compares to MSNBC. By his own employer network's standards, he has failed to bring in the viewership he previously brought in. He has been bleeding viewers consistently for a year. He has lost hundreds of advertisers from his program. He has progressively become nuttier and nuttier in his rantings and conspiracy theories. These are facts, and they are facts supported by 2 of the most conservative sources in existence. They are facts that are indisputable. And yet you pretend that none of that had any relevance whatsoever when it came to determining whether or not to renew Beck's contract. All you do is wave it all away as some kind of liberal hate and offer in return completely unsupported speculation. Talk about "entertaining complete fantasy"! Dishonest.

3.) I'm done discussing anything with you, not because of the sources you provide, but because you're DISHONEST. You make allegations without support, don't bother to check the sources that are provided to you (and as a result just to wildly erroneous conclusions) and wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass.

[PERM BANNED]

I forgot that you said that Obama supporters are smarter than people who didn't vote for him. I can't compete at your level. Just too dishonest I guess.

[TAP]

A tiny percentage of US voters watch any of that cable news crap, it thinks it's much more important than it is.

[freedom78]

I'll openly say that Beck is largely an idiot, and to a lesser extent so is Hannity. I like O'Reilly, but some of the shit he says is retarded as well. An example being his justification for a God based on the tides. Yet I rarely if ever hear many people on the left offer the same critiques about the MSNBC crew.

For the record, I"ve repeatedly said that I can't stand the direction of cable news, whether it's Fox or MSNBC or any other opinion journalism. I think there's a valid need for discussion, but not the sorts of shows we get from Ed n' Rachel or Glenn n' Sean. It's all crap, it's all twisted to meet a partisan or ideological agenda, and it's a serious decline in the quality of our journalism. Now, that's not to say that there's no place for opinion...it just shouldn't be marketed as fact or news. I can live with one editorial page in a newspaper otherwise full of real journalism. But hour after hour of partisan messages...ugh.

[cousin it]

Nothing about the costs of the unions and whether they actually benefit anyone.

Ronald Reagan on collective bargaining: "These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland … They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." -Labor Day 1980

[artcinco]

Not sure if Reagan made a distinction between public or private sector unions.

[cousin it]

Well, since he shit canned the air traffic controllers union, I would think that he did...

[artcinco]

True dat.

[PERM BANNED]

And this whole argument has been around public sector unions. Something FDR himself opposed.