Talk:Glenn Beck: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:54, 2 July 2009 editHardindr (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users632 edits →Starting over: Another reply← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:57, 2 July 2009 edit undoHardindr (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users632 edits →Starting over: I don't like threatsNext edit →
Line 220:		Line 220:

	:::: I didn't put this into the article, but I think it is noteworthy. It was widely mentioned in the media, and Beck even received criticism from fellow employees at the Fox network. I have not opinion as to whether Beck's outburst was spontaneous or acting. --] (]) 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)		:::: I didn't put this into the article, but I think it is noteworthy. It was widely mentioned in the media, and Beck even received criticism from fellow employees at the Fox network. I have not opinion as to whether Beck's outburst was spontaneous or acting. --] (]) 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

			:::: Additionally, I do not like your threat made here , ]. You are the person the one violating the 3RR rule, not me. Are you an administrator? Do you have the power to ban people? --] (]) 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

	== No Controversy section?==		== No Controversy section?==

Revision as of 23:57, 2 July 2009

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glenn Beck article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glenn Beck article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Christianity: Latter Day Saints Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Latter Day Saints portal This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Washington

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Radio High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

Mention of Beck's leanings/endorsements throughout the pres. primaries

and the general election the last go around IMO could find a place in this article. (Somebody deleted the thread I already started on this topic, though.) Anyway, it appears he backed Mitt. (?? See here: http://committedtoromney.com/2008/10/27/romney-on-glenn-beck/ ).

Does anybody have further links to fill in any other pertinent pieces? ↜Just me, here, now … 06:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Attendance at Yale currently overstated

The current entry states, "He graduated from Sehome High School in Bellingham, Washington in 1982, and attended Yale University as a non-traditional student with a major in Theology." This implies that he spent a significant time as a student, which, as the GQ article cited notes, was not the case at all--he only took one class.

The referenced article says "With a letter of recommendation from Senator Joe Lieberman—who came on Beck’s Connecticut radio show several times and whom Beck voted for—Beck enrolled at Yale as part of a special program for older students, studying theology. He took only one class—the night before the semester began, he and his first wife decided to divorce, and suddenly he had two households to support—but when his professor told him, “Glenn, you belong here,” it was an experience that gave the high school grad a new sense of intellectual worth."

I think it would be fairer to say, "He graduated from Sehome High School in Bellingham, Washington in 1982. Later, he enrolled at Yale University as a non-traditional student with a major in Theology, but took only one class before leaving due to the need to support two households."

Heyamishgirl (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it would be fairer to say: "He graduated from Sehome High School in Bellingham, Washington in 1982 and took a single theology class at Yale University." The other stuff is filler fluff. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I changed the wording to what it is now because the editor that added the info and source had misrepresented what the source actually said. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I attended Yale as an undergrad (at roughly the same time when Beck claims to have been there)---there is no institutional way to "major in theology" there. Yale has an undergraduate "Religious Studies Department" and a grad-level Divinity School, in either of which it is perhaps possible that Glenn Beck took a class on theology. But if Beck claims to have "majored" in "theology", that's a lie. In any case, candidates for an undergraduate degree at Yale do not declare a major until after their first year of study. If Beck took one course there through a "continuing education" program for adults, he never would have declared a major. And if he had declared a major, he could not have declared it in Theology, because there is no Theology Department as part of Yale College (in which one takes all undergraduate-level courses). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.126.87 (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Any mention of his time at Yale should arguably be dropped per WP:WEIGHT. Little information exists, the source is weak, and if he really only attended a single class (in the nebulous pseudo-subject of theology, no less) it would seem that personal recollections of "really belonging" are pretty ludicrous. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that this issue isn't particularly salient, you don't need to attack theology here. A class is a class at a university, and its perceived importance by an atheist doesn't dictate whether or not it should be mentioned. EJNOGARB 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A critique quote

"His success is pretty simple," said Robert Thompson, a professor of television and popular culture at Syracuse University. "He puts on a consistently good show that is a great mix of culture and entertainment, with painstaking research to back it up. Plus, Beck's show is personality-driven. People genuinely like him."---PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW ↜Just me, here, now … 06:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Columnists are not generally considered to be reliable sources for anything other than their own opinions. I've already seen commentary from other columnists critiquing that column. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Though the standards for BLP are especially stringent, Misplaced Pages:Reliable_reference#Biographies_of_living_persons states that opinion pieces may be used if they're identified as such. I think the quote should be allowed. EJNOGARB 21:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what value it adds. The columnist herself is not notable, ~~nor is the academic it was extracted from~~ although the academic it was extracted from at least has a stub here. We're not looking to add fluff pieces here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an overly long article and it characterizes his popularity. If the OP wants to add it, I'll support it. EJNOGARB 22:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

the quote can be added if it is consistent with what the majority or mainstream thinks of him. how are we going to decide that. subjective. may we can add both opposing opinions of him. --Like I Care 23:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The article has a lot of criticism and therefore, balance is not a problem. the only issue i see here is the notability of the person who opined. --Like I Care 23:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of journalistic balance, IMO

-- do pretty well. ↜Just me, here, now … 01:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Protect

The page needs to be semi-protected. Majority of changes are adolescent vandalism and reverts.E2a2j (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck: "I'm scared as hell and I'm not going to take it any more." 24.218.204.165 (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"The 9/12 project"

I submit that, as it currently stands, this section should be eliminated entirely. Where are the third-party sources? Where is the establishment of relevance and notability? There are three citations, all of them "theglennbleck912project.com", and none of the text states why it should be included. Zelnr (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, Beck appears to be trying to lead a political movement - an addition to his broadcasting, book/magazine publishing, and stageshow endeavors. Group claims some half million people. I'm guessing that there are third party citations - will take a look.E2a2j (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that this section be expanded. The 9/12 Project has no unified network, but is a slogan used by several different groups and organizations across the country. I would like to propose something to the following be added:

Glenn's official site for the 9/12 Project was not prepared for the initial number of visitors it recieved and crashed shortly after being announced. Fans of the movement have developed their own 9/12 groups across the country. There are 9/12 groups in several states on meetup.com as well as Facebook. Attempts are being made to unify the various groups under one coalition or network. The diversity and effectiveness of these groups has yet to be determined. These organizations are posing themselves to have an influence on the 2010 elections. Candidates who are seeking the support of these groups are now calling themselves 9/12 Candidates.

There is a new site, in an open forum format rather than the WordPress blog/intense debate site, for 9-12 discussion. It's located at:

The 9-12 Project Forum —Preceding unsigned comment added by EllaRun (talk • contribs) 04:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Television section

The television section reads more like a criticism section. Do we need trivial criticisims by pundits who criticize everything (at least everything conservative)? They seem trivial, and very POV. Bytebear (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Beck's 20 May 2009 guest spot on The View.

...has received a lot of media commentary.

The show aired a snippet from a Beck's radio show where Beck talked about riding AmTrak with women from The View in which Beck said, "You cannot reserve a seat on Amtrak, they don't do it. Well, all of a sudden the police enter, 'Clear the path!' it's Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg. How did they reserve seats on Amtrak, when you can't reserve seats on Amtrak? Now, as the train took off and Barbara said 'Glenn Beck.' and I said, 'Yes Mrs. Walters, how are you?' 'You're going to be on our show in a couple of weeks I understand.'"

Cutting back to The View, Whoopi Goldberg then interviews Beck: "I wanted to make sure, before I brought this up to you. We didn't reserve seats, I don't know - wait, lemme just - wait a minute -"

Glenn Beck said, "I don't know what - lemme say - you're accusing me of lying."

Goldberg said, "You did lie! What do you mean I'm accusing you? You sat there and you're a lyin' sack of dog mess."

Beck and Goldberg's interuptions of each other continued for awhile, then Goldberg says: "Why did you try to make some stuff up about Barbara and I? That's what I'm trying to find out."

Beck said, "Mrs. Walters, I am sorry that I, to use Nancy Pelosi's words, misspoke about being, you calling me over. You did not call me over. I went over."

Should mention of this be made in the article? ↜Just M E here , now 14:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw the segement and heard Beck's discussion of it on the radio the next day. IMO, it's not terribly notable, especially unless the "media commentary" you mention is cited. I am a bit curious what that other commentary was.E2a2j (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, the amount of commentary proves the event's notability, even if in anyone's own personal POV the brouhaha is a tempest in a teapot/much ado about nothing. (Wrt POV, btw, my own political leanings pretty much align with those of Noam Chomsky...nonetheless I've a softspot for the crosswinds the poor commentators more on the conservative side of the spectrum have to weather!) In any case, the most in-depth commentary by far has been at Breitbart.tv's "The B-Cast": part 1, part 2.

But since there's not much hay able to be made from Beck's confessed micro-prevarication, most media mentions simply highlight Goldberg's pithy put down, eg Media Matters, Salon, Kos, Gawker, HuffPo, TVGuide, Entertainment Weekly, Time (with conservative critiques of the media likewise making only passing mention of the media's only passing mention, eg NewsBusters, The Week, etc.).

On the segment of The View, Goldberg angrily denounces Beck as a liar and Walters says Beck, "as an investigative reporter," should have checked with them before reporting the incident on his radio show. (Which accusation of lying was, according to my read of the tangled threads of cross-conversation, referring to the idea that a table had been reserved on AmTrak somehow for Walters and Goldberg.) However, whenever Beck would address this substance of his radio story about the reserved seating, he would be cut off. So therefore the substance of what Beck was being called a liar for was either (1) that Beck had mimicked Walter's voice (which complaint was emphasized over and over again by Goldberg), and/or (2) that Beck, in retelling the meeting, said that Walters had said, "Glenn Beck..." when in actual fact, Glenn introduced himself and Walters did not say Beck's name to open the conversation (which "mischaracterization" Beck repeatedly and profusely apologized for on the show).

"The B-Cast" part 2 produces e-mails that Beck had written while in transit after he and his wife and party had boarded in Connecticut that said the table was being reserved for un-named parties and then that at NYPenn station the AmTrak police ushered in Walters and Goldberg to the table; "The B-Cast" further believes the substance of Goldberg's argument hypocritical since comedian Goldberg mugs in her commentaries as well, likewise engaging in raconteurship and mocking dramatizations of conversations as part of her own schtick. ↜Just M E here , now 18:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

An example of comentary from columnists in flyover country is the section "Defending Glenn vs. 'The View'" in Neal Zoren's column in the Delaware County, Pennsyvania Daily Times. ↜Just M E here , now 19:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Beck's response on his 21 May radio show:
"I don't know what Whoopi Goldberg believes and I wasn't afforded the time to ask what exactly I was lying about or reply or defend myself or anything. But so I don't know exactly what her deal is. I told the TV staff, call her, invite her on the show. I'd love to talk to her on the show.

"I don't have any intention of making enemies, but I'm not going to also hold my tongue. I will say what I believe. This is what I do. You know, I mean, Barbara Walters, 'So you call yourself an investigative journalist.' No. Don't you ever do your own homework, Barbara? Don't you check your facts? No, I don't call myself an investigative journalist. I'm nothing of the kind.And I'm not a journalist as a badge of honor quite frankly. I am a ‑‑ exactly right. I'm more of what Whoopi Goldberg does. I'm a storyteller. I'm somebody who just kind of reflects on what happens in life. I tell you my point of view on what's going on.I wonder if the journalists like Barbara Walters called my office to check on my facts because I have four witnesses. No, no. No, she didn't. She didn't call to get my side of the story before she put me on national television and called me a liar. But it's not ‑‑ see, this isn't ‑‑ but you know what? It's okay for her not to check her facts but to the apparently for me. And I'm sorry, and I apologize. And Whoopi, I told her at the end, she said, you know, if you have a ‑‑ if something like this happens again ‑‑ and I'm thinking to myself, I don't think this is going to happen again. 'But if something like this happens again,' she said, 'You just call me. Just call me.'

"I don't even know if they were accusing me of lying about who walked up to whom first.

"Can I tell you something? Here's the thing. And you know, I don't really even ‑‑ I don't care because Barbara Walters made it very clear that I was not to make fun of her.So I'm not making fun ‑‑ so I'm not going to make fun of her. Look, she is a woman who accomplished an awful lot in her life, in the many, many, many storied years of her life. She has accomplished an awful lot. She broke ground for women way, way, way, way back. So I'm not going to make fun of her. I am going to say this. I did have the feeling she was Norma Desmond. Now, if you don't know who Norma Desmond is, just remember this one line: I'm ready for my close‑up, Mr. DeMille. It was almost ‑‑ because it was creepy. It was creepy. She was extraordinarily hostile. When she asked me ‑‑ and we'll play this back. She was doing a stare‑down. Like she was like 8 years old. She was doing a stare‑down with me. And I thought to myself, what are you doing. And I felt, I actually ‑‑ in the end I feel bad because I feel like she ‑‑ maybe is she sensing that she's ‑‑ you know, I felt like Jerry Seinfeld: Do you even know who I am? You know what I mean?" ↜Just M E here , now 19:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the conservative website NewsBusters: “About what was Beck accused of lying? Beck, on a recent radio program, recounted a tale of meeting Goldberg and Barbara Walters on an Amtrak train bound for Washington D.C. Finding seats was apparently difficult on that day (odd, for Amtrak), and upon finding a few open seats, Beck was told by an Amtrak official that those open seats were reserved. A few minutes later, Beck says, Goldberg and Walters walked onto the train, and sat down in the reserved seats.”
Nonpartisan website Politics Daily: “Whoopi Goldberg went after him for what she said were his lies about a chance meeting between Beck, Barbara Walters and Goldberg on the Amtrak train to Washington before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner this month. Beck recounted the meeting on his radio program, saying Barbara and Whoopi had approached him and then dismissed him. Whoopi said Beck should have remembered that he approached them (not the other way around), introduced himself and then had a pleasant conversation. ‘Why do you lie? You’re a lying sack of dog mess,’ Whoopi said. ‘For you to make something up like that, and to say we pulled you in, it was a lie.’” ↜Just M E here , now 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Keith Olbermann
Allahpundit ↜Just M E here , now 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The Independent: Last week, Glenn rocked-up on The View, a popular daytime TV chatshow along the lines of Loose Women, and was promptly called "a lying sack of dog mess", to his face, by co-host Whoopi Goldberg. His crime: telling a very minor fib about a recent meeting they'd had to listeners of the radio show he broadcasts each morning. In a somewhat grovelling manner, he admitted to having 'mis-spoken'. But his ratings soared." ↜Just M E here , now 06:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Follow up

The B-Cast's Scott Baker, who investigated the matter (his video is here), is interviewed by Beck:

Scott Baker: Yeah. Well, yes, you are right, you've got me because, you know, we've had you on your show that we do on Breitbart TV, the B Cast and we've hung out just a little bit a couple of times you've been in Pittsburgh and so I knew firsthand that you are a lying sack of dog mess. I knew that right away.

Glenn Beck: (Laughing).

BAKER: So I went in with that, you know, as my obviously.

BECK: Yes, yes. Glenn is clearly a lying sack of dog mess.

BAKER: Exactly. And in fact, what happened, I called I thought, you know what, I'm going to start with Amtrak, you know, before I call ABC. Because since Barbara Walters had said on the air, you know, a reporter should check out facts, you should have called me, it would have been no problem. I was expecting I'd have no problem on getting information from ABC. So I called Amtrak Finally the top guy at Amtrak calls me back and I actually have the first adult conversation that I had the entire two weeks, and I was expecting he was nice, which was shocking, and I was expecting that I'd get the same kind of basic answer, but he said, I have some news for you. And I kind of just like gulped. And he said, I can confirm that ABC did contact Amtrak to request a police escort for Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg. And I was like, well, holy cow. You know, that's kind of what Glenn described. And then he said

BECK: They came in, and they came in and that's exactly what happened. I said that on the air.

BAKER: And he said, here's the deal on how, you know, on probably what happened with the train. And he admitted he did not talk to the person that was the cabin attendant and he didn't know. So it's still unclear whether ABC requested specific seats, but really that doesn't matter. We know that ABC requested special accommodation for Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg, special treatment.

BECK: Wait. But wait. We called Barbara Walters' office and you just asked her and she said, if you just want to know, you just call my office.

BAKER: So I e mail the PR guy at The View.n fact, what the PR guy had said in one of the e mails. "They talked about this on the air. Didn't you see it." And so she said, you know, here's what happened; Glenn Beck was wrong; I called him out. And it just and I was like, well, that doesn't answer any actual question. So I wrote back, thanked her and the PR guy for responding in the first place. And I said and I was very clear. Said, look, I understand it is possible, maybe even probable that the women, Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg, didn't know that ABC had requested this. However, I think that as you get out of your Town Car and police are around you walking you along, it might occur to you not every Amtrak passenger is getting this sort of escort. So I found that but still possible that they thought maybe Amtrak just on their own, you know, they won the Amtrak lottery that day. So I wrote back and I said, here are my questions, though. And I was very specific because I went over. I said, you know, Glenn never said that Barbara Walters approached him, you know, on the train. He didn't say, "I accused Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters of reserving seats on this train." He just said, "I got on the train and they told me that's seats were reserved and then these people got on." So this is all silly except for the fact that it became a seven minute segment where it was clear that Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg are like, we're going to take this guy down a notch; we want to wipe that smug smile off his face. And that's the part that got me mad. And I get an answer back from the PR guy that just says, there will be no further, you know, communication about this story. So I get nothing from Barbara Walters, nothing from her office. So after all of this, you know, sort of sanctimonious lecturing of you

BECK: Do me a favor. Do me a favor. Will you write this down for me in a short pithy what you have. I'm going to attach it to a letter myself and I am going to send it to Barbara Walters' office myself because she said, "All you have to do is call." That's fine. I would like a statement back from her. ↜Just M E here , now 21:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This whole conversation is moot. Misplaced Pages sources are secondary, not primary. Do you have a secondary reliable source that comments on this interview? If not, it is a primary source, and should not be used. Bytebear (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, reference to the Amtrak spokesman's telling Scott Baker about ABC's request for assistance for The View ladies from the Amtrak police (otherwise found in the above interview on Beck's site, on Breitbart-TV's site, and on the Naked Emperor site) is already found on the (conservative) News Busters site, here; and perhaps with more time, other secondary sources will make mention of it, too. ↜Just M E here , now 06:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The June 5 Washington Examiner's op-ed page also linked to TV Newser's mention/link of reporter Baker's piece. ↜Just M E here , now 07:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the primary source of the interview itself, note that WP:NOR says about primary sources, "an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." The Glenn Beck website sometimes contains transcripts of interviews broadcasted on his syndicated radio show, which primary source of such transcripts is often used in reliable secondary sources with no-one claiming such transcripts unreliable; therefore this transcript can be used to say that Scott Baker has asserted such-'n'-so.
Nevertheless, even if it were to be argued, say, that a transcript of an interview of the Charlie Rose Show contained on the Charlie Rose website could not be considered a primary source but instead should be considered a source self-published by Rose -- (?) -- Well, even so, we'd end up with the self-same conclusion: Since a self-published source is considered reliable with regard the biographies and beliefs of the writers of the source themselves, we could still use the transcript to establish Baker as having made the assertion about ABC and Amtrak. Thus, taken together, even if we considered Beck's site, the B-Cast's site, and the Naked Emperor site all to be self-published sources: Beck's participation in the conversation would be established by Beck's self-published site; Baker's participation by the B-Cast webshow's website; and the author of the Naked Emperor website's having made a video about Baker's investigation, pieced together from snippets of audio and video from the forementioned shows, would be established by her blog -- with Baker's investigation about this apparently controversial Amtrak episode also being accepted as reliable by the partisan media watchdog News Busters website and there being no parties, not Amtrak itself, nor mainstream media sources to include ABC itself, nor any independent media watchdog publication or website, nor any competing, partisan media watchdog such as Media Matters for America, nor any political blog such as the Huffington Post, etc., who have questioned as of yet Baker's assertion. ↜Just M E here , now 18:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I see a whole bunch of material above. What is being proposed/discussed? Inclusion of the View segment in the main article? Is there some proposed text? Sorry, I just don't see what the "discussion" is about. E2a2j (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous said, "I just don't see what the 'discussion' is about."

Not every talk page discussion must be hashing out controversies. In the present case, as this section's first post said, what's being proposed is this: " Beck's 20 May 2009 guest spot on The View has received a lot of media commentary. Should mention of this be made in the article?" I don't know how to be more straightforward than that. There has been no counter arguements to speak of, and the remainder of the posts merely marshall sources. ↜Just M E here , now 19:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've proved the notability of "Beck v. The View." How should a contribution of this material be composed? I suggest something parallel to the article's mention of the controversy over Beck's apocalyptic talk and tears. Perhaps News Busters's summary of Scott Baker's investigation could be referenced, balancing that with the analysis (below) provided by by Politics Daily?

"No sooner had the Fox News host taken a seat among the ladies during the "Hot Topics" segment than Whoopi Goldberg went after him for what she said were his lies about a chance meeting between Beck, Barbara Walters and Goldberg on the Amtrak train to Washington before the White House Correspondents' Dinner this month.

"Beck recounted the meeting on his radio program, saying Barbara and Whoopi had approached him and then dismissed him. Whoopi said Beck should have remembered that he approached them (not the other way around), introduced himself and then had a pleasant conversation.

"'Why do you lie? You're a lying sack of dog mess,' Whoopi said. 'For you to make something up like that, and to say we pulled you in, it was a lie.'

"Barbara then went at him. 'You are an investigative reporter.'

"Beck: 'No I'm not.'

"Barbara: 'You are a reporter. Do you check facts?'

"Beck: 'No, I'm not- I'm a commentator. I commentate on life.'

"Eventually, Beck apologized for his radio riff about the train encounter. 'I am sorry, to use Nancy Pelosi words, that I misspoke. You did not come over, I came over.'"

↜Just M E here , now 15:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion (this weighty topic deserves an even more exalted word; OK, ahem, "my summation"): I think Beck broke the social convention among celebs -- among any group of people who interact socially, truth be told! -- that ya don't interact with people socially and then turn around and broadcast to everyone in a mocking tone how the interaction went unless ya want to make those who you're mocking your enemies. Yet, of course, celebs are members of the "media establishment" and as public figures in their own right really ought to be able to handle such mocking and have thick skins about it or else they've gotta simply get into another line of work. Therefore, Beck's funny story telling about the special accomodations given the ladies (1) yes, reasonably provoked their "You lying sack of dog mess"/"Doncha offer those ya report on chance to comment before ya publish??!!" response; yet at the same time (2) Beck is fully justified to allege that Whoopi/Barb have equivocated to the extent they want people not to believe that they walked behind fully uniformed Amtrak police officers onto the train and were seated at a table or whatever the hell this brouhaha originally was about. Whatever its genesis, this feud has become part of Beck's story in the popular culture and so I'll try to make some offhand rendering of what I believe to be the most common aspects of it that have been mentioned in the media (eg the very recent 20-20 interview that included a snippet of Goldberg's fury) and make a quick contribution of what I come up with to the article. If any other contributors find my take to be POV I hope they'll re-edit it toward achieving better balance. ↜Just M E here , now 15:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC); The new section re: The View looks good. I'd only add that, as it turns out, the ladies did in fact receive special treatment and reserved seats, according to the Breitbart reporter. Well done Justme. E2a2j (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that ABC did confirm contacting Amtrak concerning Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg riding that train. They did not confirm if seats were reserved but Amtrak certainly knew those two would be riding that train.Arclarke84 (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

How about something about this dude's MONSTER ratings? He routinely DOUBLES his ENTIRE competition....COMBINED!

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_friday_june_12_118993.asp

Wow! Makes a liberal want to puke in their mouth a little, huh? haha

68.40.123.217 (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Books

Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine, released June 2009.

Change to: Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine, released June 16, 2009.--12.23.111.178 (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.23.111.178 (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

For real?

Some - such as Cenk Uygur of theyoungturks.com - have questioned the extent to which Beck actually believes what he says, suggesting that he might be (in some sense) playing a role. I believe that there should be some acknowledgement of this in the article. 90.214.227.242 (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the basis for Uygur's claims? Anyone can say that a person is lying, but what is the evidence? Npeters22 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Specifically a video in which Beck is seen laughing and joking with a photographer about whom he had not long before said some very harsh things - I think it was for a recent GQ Magazine shoot. Uygur played it during a segment of his show, commenting that he found it difficult to square the hostility and vehemence of Beck's on-air persona with the relaxed affability of the person in the video. My own view - which I know doesn't count here, but I'll give it anyway - is that Beck probably does believe a lot of what he says, but is playing Devil's Advocate at least to a limited extent. Others have commented on this apart from Uygur, I'll try and get some detailed refs. 90.212.113.124 (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  - OK here's one article: ]. Apparently Beck is a big admirer of Orson Welles - perpetrator of one of the biggest frauds (in a sense) in broadcasting history. He even named his media organisation, Mercury Radio Arts, after Welles' theatre company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.113.124 (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Date error

In the article on Beck's history there is a mistake in a date, given as 4009, that should obviously be 2009, just prior to the mention of the book "The 5,000 Year Leap" and its author. John Edward Mahalo D'Aura —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.50.132 (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

fixed. Bytebear (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of anecdotal incidents

I have removed several paragraphs of cherry picked anecdotal incidents that present a leading POV. There is nothing noteworthy about these events, and they are all written to make Beck look like conspiracy theorist wacko. I have removed them for their lack of notability and their leading nature, not to mention the issues with the more strict issues dealing with biographies of living persons. If you think one or more of these paragraphs should remain, please give specific reason why the incident is noteworthy and how it relates to the overall biography of Glen Beck. Bytebear (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The items I have included in this article are not POV or unnoteworthy. There is nothing "cherry picked" about them. They are properly sourced. That Beck has repeated on a major mainstream cable newschannel a conspiracy theory that is largely relegated to the hard, ultra-right in America (i.e. FEMA facilities turning into concentration camps) is certainly noteworthy. That Beck has written a foreward for, emphatically endorsed and handed out a book by a notorious conspiracist and John Birch Society supporter is certainly noteworthy, as is other conservatives' criticism of him doing so. I have no idea whether Beck is a "conspiracy theorist wacko" (your words), since I don't know whether he believes the things he says. I don't seen how Misplaced Pages:BLP applies to what I've added. You need to explain to me why these items are not noteworthy before you take it upon yourself unilaterally sanitize this article. --Hardindr (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's cherry picking. Beck has done hundreds if not thousands of shows on a wide range of topics, and you have chosen topics that in your own words, "a conspiracy theory that is largely relegated to the hard, ultra-right in America." That is cherry picking a topic. And your obsession with labeling Scousen a "Conspiracy theorist" is also cherry picking those descriptors, which other editors have already agreed. The burden of proof does not lie with me. And if you know the BLP policy, you should know that that burden is far more strict than with other articles. Now, if you want to discuss each paragraph, then by all means, but I see nothing of value in them. Bytebear (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on all aspects, but certainly some of that material has been here for awhile. Beck is a very controversial figure (abnormally so, even for a pundit), and it's inevitable that we will discuss some of the more notable controversies here. "More notable" is determined by those which have received the most coverage. The thing with Keith Ellison was widely discussed and I think therefore worth including, as was his 9/12 Project show and the on-air tears (mocked not only by Colbert, but also a fellow Fox News anchor). One can debate about what belongs and does not belong, but it would not be in keeping with WP:NPOV if we didn't cover some of the most noteworthy controversies with respect to Beck. I would make the same argument over at an article like Michael Moore, incidentally.

Of course, we also need to cover the basics about Beck's life, popularity of his shows and books, etc. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So you think 1) a comedy bit mocking his emotion, 2) a FEMA comment in one show, 3) a comment from a press secretary about a book endorsement and 4) a disagreement with Whoopie Goldburg on the View are all noteworthy controversies? Seriously? Bytebear (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

David Frum is a former speech writer for GWB and a prominent and incluential conservative. His criticism of Beck is definetely noteworthy, even more so because of its harshness. --Hardindr (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I did not say that, and anyway it's not about what you think or I think, it's about attention received in secondary sources. Being mocked on The Colbert Report can be notable, especially when Shepard Smith also mocks you, and especially when the incident is reported all over the place (surely you know this—the crying bit was widely, widely covered and it seems utterly appropriate to mention it here, indeed a huge number of people probably know him only for this incident). The FEMA comment got some attention but inclusion of that is certainly debatable, as is inclusion of criticism from David Frum (though he's a prominent conservative, obviously, which is worth considering, and by the way he was a speechwriter, not a press secretary). I had not heard of the thing with The View until I came here and have no idea how I feel about that.

If you're willing to discuss the specifics of these here then that is good. Again, what matters in terms of evaluating this is the amount of discussion of various incidents in secondary sources and the overall neutrality of the article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So you think that a mocking video or comedy skit about Obama would be fitting as well? I know that, "Barack the Magic Negro" got a lot of play on Rush Limbaugh and other conservative circles. Why is no mention of that on Obama's bio? The simple answer is, it isn't noteworthy. And neither is the material in question here. Bytebear (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's better to structure this as a conversation, rather than a series of "what about this?" questions. No, I don't think that that video should be mentioned in Obama's article. You'll notice that I did not say that the Colbert video should necessarily be mentioned in this article—I said "being mocked on The Colbert Report can be notable," and pointed out that I think the whole "crying" incident should be mentioned in some fashion. Maybe Colbert's response should not be included, I'm certainly open to that. I'm willing to work with you here. No need to reply to this (unless you want to) as I'll engage with the conversation continuing below. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an "obsession" with labeling Skousen a conspiracy theorist, beacuse that is what he is known for, besides being a major supporter of the John Birch Society. I'm working on pulling together the necessary cites to have the article on him reflect this, particularly in the lead. It is irrelevent that Beck has done thousands of shows on a wide range of topic. It isn't irrelevent or unnoteworthy when a major figure on popular mainstream cable news televeision show repeats fringe conspiracy theories, or promotes the book of a notorious conspiracist. If Keith Olbermann or Rachael Maddow got up on their show one day and said, "You know what? I can't debunk these theories out their that 'Bush did 9/11'! Isn't that funny? Oh, and by the way, this book by David Icke, its "divinely inspired!" that would be noteworthy and definitely worthy of inclusion in their respective[REDACTED] entries. I think what I have posted about Beck is well within the BLP policy, though you are free to disagree. Do you want to move this to an RFC? --Hardindr (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

and you don't see that as being a wee bit POV? Pushing an agenda that Beck is wrapped up in conspiracy theories. I doubt you will get too far in the Skousen article either, since his theories were well regarded at the time. In fact, other than the category on his article "conspiracy theorists" (which I think is misplaced POV), there is no mention of him being such in the entire article (at least last time I checked- I am sure that will change soon). I am sure there are left wing sources to the contrary, and I am sure you will try to change the article to slant it's POV toward your own impression of him. Fortunately Misplaced Pages has rules and guidelines to thwart such behavior. Consensus has already proven that your pet name for Skousen has been shot down. But I cannot stop you from perusing your agenda. Good luck. Bytebear (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"POV" is not an excuse for removing legitimate and well-sourced items from an article. Skousen's ideas about David Rockefeller and other "insiders" running both the US and the USSR were not "well regarded" by anyone, now or in the past, except by members of the John Birch Society. Your "left wing" remark reveals your own POV issues. I find this tiring. Do you want to start an RFC or should I? --Hardindr (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not removing them because they are POV, but because they are not noteworthy and by cherry picking only certain events, they present a POV. You putting up non-noteworthy items is just an attempt at pushing your POV. We have already established consensus on the use of "conspiracy theorist" to describe Skousen, but if you want to bring more people to the discussion, by all means, just don't cherry pick them like you do your facts. Bytebear (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I will add that if and when you find references to Skousen's supposed conspiracy theories (meaning you need a third party reliable source calling them as such), they should be presented on that page, not this one. Bytebear (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me get this straight. You do not regard the fact that a widely watched host of an opinion show on a major, mainstream cable news channel promoted a conspiracy theory that is believed by only those in the U.S. militia movement and other sectors of the hard right in America noteworthy? If Ed Shultz looked straight into the camera on his television program one day and said, "You know, I think Barrack Obama is controled by a Zionist cabal from the South Side of Chicago, and this book by Eustace Mullins is really great!" you wouldn't think it would be worthy of inclusion in his[REDACTED] article? As for Skousen, who is this royal "we" on Misplaced Pages that you speak of? I've put some cites into the lead of the Skousen article to accurately reflect his views, and we'll see what other editors think. I'll go to a local academic library in the next week or two to get some more. But Skousen really isn't the issue here. What will it take for you to stop sanitizing this article? --Hardindr (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Starting over

Essentially nothing above was very helpful, so let's try to start fresh. Bytebear you disagree with some of the things that are currently in the article. Why don't you specify what those are below, what you propose to do about them, and then we can discuss that. I know nothing about this fellow Skousen, but this is not his article, and therefore not the place to discuss him. Let's leave that one (fairly small) issue to the side for now.

Both of you have edit warred over this article. If that continues you'll likely both end up blocked. Instead, let's try calmly discussing the matter here. That requires remaining open to compromise, assuming good faith of other editors (please note that phrases like "unilaterally sanitize" and "slant it's POV toward your own impression of him"—each used by one of you above—very much fail to assume good faith), and working toward consensus. It might be easier to come to agreement than both of you think, so why not give it a shot? Bytebear perhaps you can lead off by stating your problems with the article as it currently exists. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. let's start with something simple. Why is a debate with Whoopie Goldberg noteworthy? From what I see of the sources, it was some "rock jocks" in the UK that reported on this? How are they notable? They certainly are not mainstream. Bytebear (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with you on this. I don't care if the View paragraph is in the article or not. --Hardindr (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, done. How about the issues unrelated to Skousen? Let's start with the spoof on Beck's emotional outbursts? Is it noteworthy to mention them at all, let alone a spoof about them? Bytebear (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't put this into the article, but I think it is noteworthy. It was widely mentioned in the media, and Beck even received criticism from fellow employees at the Fox network. I have not opinion as to whether Beck's outburst was spontaneous or acting. --Hardindr (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I do not like your threat made here , User:Bytebear. You are the person the one violating the 3RR rule, not me. Are you an administrator? Do you have the power to ban people? --Hardindr (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No Controversy section?

Glenn Beck has made some outrageous statements and had some equally outrageous hosts, including one that called for Osama Bin Laden to attack America to "Wake up" the people. Why are right-wing[REDACTED] scrubbers allowed to suppress these? ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.254.193.190 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There is some debate about this, but I think the general view is that "controversy" sections are not desirable. Rather, critical views or descriptions of controversy should be spread throughout an article when appropriate. That has happened here to some degree, though if you feel there are other things that should be discussed you might want to propose them here on the article talk page.

As a side note, I would point out that your same question is routinely asked at Barack Obama (about "left-wing[REDACTED] scrubbers" instead of "right-wing[REDACTED] scrubbers") and I routinely give the same answer there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories: