The real story on the likes of Glen Beck....

Link to story

There is a real crisis out there. It has existed for a while. It has been spreading slowly as factory after factory has shut down, as the gap between rich and poor ballooned, as the rich found ways to get richer betting on exotic financial instruments with all the economic substance of a roulette wheel, as the middle class found it harder to pay for college, for health care, for gasoline.

But most of the anger we see and hear comes from people who are paid to be angry, on cue, on cable television–as opposed to people with actual grievacnes. Suddenly, the White House press corps goes barking mad over the AIG Bonuses. It is said that the bonuses are an aspect of the bust that the “public” can understand; in truth, the bonuses are an aspect of the bust that reporters can understand. Suddenly, the Obama Administration has a “crisis.” The President has to go on television and act as if he’s angry, even though he knows these bonuses are the tiniest outcropping of outrageousness. (I mean, AIG insured mortgage-backed instruments that any qualified CPA could have seen were as solid as a soap bubble and thereby came close to bringing down the world’s financial system–that’s outrageous.)

Well, honestly, I think that the whole AIG thing just confirmed most peoples suspicions... Corporate America is not concerned about the system, but from what it can gain from that system. I think most people are just angered by the blatancy of AIG's actions, not shocked by it.

Well, I am uniquely qualified to speak on the "likes of Mr. Beck" as I was in his employ for awhile. Whereas I do not expect you to believe me, nor do I care if you do, I can assure you that Glenn Beck is for real about what he syas on the air. He is neither pandering nor fear-mongering for the sake of rating. Glenn is VERY passionate about his beliefs and he is genuinely scared for the future of this country - rightfully so.

Now I cannot make that claim for other entertainers. In fact, I am rather certain that others do so simply for the ratings and the money. Glenn, I can assure you, is a very rare exception to that rule.

Kozmo - I was at CNN for over a decade. I'm curious who you are as I am sure we've worked together at some point if you were as close to Beck as you say.

Amazing thing here... if you disagree with a large group of people, you try to pass off their opinion as "populist rage" and any high profile person who supports their positions gets painted as an "opportunistic charlitain," but if you agree with some group (ie: Bush haters judging from the OP's avatar), then the opinion has merit and any high profile person publically agreeing with you is "brave," "pioneering," and speaks "the truth" in your opinion.

It's called being a hypocrite and using ad-hominem attacks to discredit points of view you don't adopt or believe in. We all do it, yet we all loudly deny that we fall into these narrow minded clusters of humanity. It's quite fascinating to watch, actually.

I have never really had the (dis)pleasure of listening to Glen Beck for an extended period. The only lengthy interview/discussion with him that I recall seeing was with futurist Ray Kurzweil. From that interview, I gather that Mr. Beck is a retard of the highest order. Whether sincere or not, he is not worth listening to. When presented with the possibilities of technology capable of rattling the foundations of our society and redefining what it even means to be "human" - Mr. Beck's mind firmly never left the "I, Robot" and "Sexroid" pulp Sci-Fi trash.

Ray appeared to "throw out the bait" on several topics, in order to foster a deeper conversation - yet Glenn, like a Neanderthal, continually missed each and every opportunity. Apparently either incapable of grasping such concepts, or laboring under the assumption that his viewing audience were a troupe of hooting slobbering mongoloids.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Amazing thing here... if you disagree with a large group of people, you try to pass off their opinion as "populist rage" and any high profile person who supports their positions gets painted as an "opportunistic charlitain," but if you agree with some group (ie: Bush haters judging from the OP's avatar), then the opinion has merit and any high profile person publically agreeing with you is "brave," "pioneering," and speaks "the truth" in your opinion.

It's called being a hypocrite and using ad-hominem attacks to discredit points of view you don't adopt or believe in. We all do it, yet we all loudly deny that we fall into these narrow minded clusters of humanity. It's quite fascinating to watch, actually.

Dangerous things, those assumptions... especially when based on an avatar. Search my other posts and it's easily discerned that I am an equal-opportunity opponent of both parties. I just happen to think that GWB2 was one of the worst things to happen to the U.S.. The book on Obama's presidency has yet to be written - but I am no advocate.

Plus, the avatar cracked me up.

Regarding your other observations, I think Beck's record speaks for itself. As does the records of almost any other paid commentator - from either side. It is their JOB to get ratings and Beck (and others - Olberman, for one...) have discovered that a good way to do that is to tap into, and fan the flames of discontent.

The purpose of the article was to caution people against buying into the game.