It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Glenn Beck, is he to be trusted?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
just asking because ive been seeing a lot of people saying glenn beck is bad because he works for fox news. but ive seen his show, and he seems to be waking up the masses w/ his topics and antics. and dont tell me not to trust someone because he is a jew or mormon, religion has nothing to do with this.




posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I was surprised to see guest on his show discussing the NWO and saying that our former and present leaders were not in the least bit leading us into socialism or communism , but instead fascism.... He was right in there with them saying that this is what is happening..... For a Fox employ to acknowledge this is a real shock to me and at the same time a positive move by them..... I have seen things as heading this way for over 40 years.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
NO

I would say look at who pays his checks. Then you see the whole link of news deviation produced for decade's.

Plus personally he seem's ingenious to me. just my 2 cents

semper fi



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by 180attoseconds
just asking because ive been seeing a lot of people saying glenn beck is bad because he works for fox news.





Fox News has a reputation of being worse than run-of-the-mill national tabloids. When you pick up a tabloid, you expect to see foolish stories about "three headed babies" or the "spawn of Satan". Problem is, Fox is masquerading as a serious member of the media while they output their version of "three-headed-babies" and "Spawn of Satan" type-stories. They are nothing more than a blatant propaganda outlet.

If Beck is a serious reporter/MSM individual, he needs to go to a real "news" network. I would not trust anything I heard on a Murdoch-owned broadcast outlet. That includes Fox, the Wall Street Journal, Sky News and many others.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by rko_radio
 





I would not trust anything I heard on a Murdoch-owned broadcast outlet. That includes Fox, the Wall Street Journal, Sky News and many others.


I'm not going to dispute this quote.

But I do want to ask you what you think is a Trustworthy source?



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176

I'm not going to dispute this quote.

But I do want to ask you what you think is a Trustworthy source?





I don't have much faith in the MSM, period. I see bias across all major networks and papers; some more than others.

I deem a story as true when I can cross reference details from many sources. The best source I read today is aljazzeera:

english.aljazeera.net...

They cover events that are completely ignored elsewhere. My secound best source is Reuters:

www.reuters.com...


IMO, Blogs and websites are frequently better sources of info than *any* MSM source:

georgewashington.blogspot.com...

www.justacitizen.com...

www.bradblog.com...






[edit on 3-4-2009 by rko_radio]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
IMO no single source should be treated as "trusted" - especially people with an agenda, be it Beck or anyone else.

The best thing is to seek out a wide variety of sources, and make up your own mind.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by 180attoseconds
 


Put more faith in Beck than anything in washington. Obamassiah, Queen of the damned Pelosi, not prince of thieve harry reed can be trusted in anything.

The 'takeover" has begun by the vile ones, soon the shooting will start.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by rko_radio

I deem a story as true when I can cross reference details from many sources. The best source I read today is aljazzeera:

english.aljazeera.net...


[edit on 3-4-2009 by rko_radio]


I find it interesting that you don't consider any of the US MSM to be credible sources but you do consider al-Jazeera to be credible. Just because they run stories that are not carried elsewhere. If these stories are actually propaganda then that could explain why other news outlets do not run them.

I don't disagree that none of the msm outlets should be believed at face value, neither should al-jazeera be believed without supporting evidence.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Beck and some others on FOX and similar stations may become slightly useful at the moment, as it's a Liberal administration, they will want to dig any dirt they can, but we should never think they are on our sides. They are a business first, and they want to put things on air that get viewers. Right now populist anger against the elites is pretty big, so they will want to try and earn some coins on that.

Any actual useful info they give out or cover is just a side effect of that.

As others have said, you need to analyse many sources, Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Dissident, Pro-government, and more. All of them will have blind spots somewhere, so you have to shop around to fill the gaps as best you can.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Its getting harder and harder to keep track and to know who to trust especially on TV, I take everything with multiple grains of salt that I see on the boob-tube.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman


I find it interesting that you don't consider any of the US MSM to be credible sources but you do consider al-Jazeera to be credible. Just because they run stories that are not carried elsewhere. If these stories are actually propaganda then that could explain why other news outlets do not run them.

I don't disagree that none of the msm outlets should be believed at face value, neither should al-jazeera be believed without supporting evidence.





I think that Reuters is US based.

Read Al-Jazeera for a bit before making any judgements. I can find more verifiable info about US antics thru them than I can find in any western news.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   


I think that Reuters is US based.


They're Canadian owned, but based in the UK.

They're not a US company.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by RubberBaron
Beck and some others on FOX and similar stations may become slightly useful at the moment, as it's a Liberal administration, they will want to dig any dirt they can, but we should never think they are on our sides. They are a business first, and they want to put things on air that get viewers. Right now populist anger against the elites is pretty big, so they will want to try and earn some coins on that.

Any actual useful info they give out or cover is just a side effect of that.

As others have said, you need to analyse many sources, Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Dissident, Pro-government, and more. All of them will have blind spots somewhere, so you have to shop around to fill the gaps as best you can.


i think this is the best answer.

follow up -

how about penn jillette from that show Penn and Teller Bull#? ive seen all their shows and they are quite logical.

theyre libertarian, theyre pro gun ownership, anti government, pro constitution and US amendment, he also was for ron paul, pro legalization of marijuana, anti global warming crap, anti scientology and bull# religious stuff, anti creationism being taught in schools as science, among many others.

but theyre against david icke, reptilians, and alien abductions (no proof), against 911 being downed by bombs,



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Jb0311NY
 


You know what gets me is that you people say this stuff now. But where have you been when he was working for CNN saying the EXACT same things hes saying now? I didnt hear you guys calling for his head then?

Or where were you Years and Years ago when he was doing this stuff on his radio show , before he ever got into the main stream media, doing and saying the SAME things hes doing now?!

Glenn hasnt changed his tune ONE degree since he started his radio show, and even now on his show on Fox. Its always been consistent. Hes ALWAYS reported the same way, hes ALWAYS approached things the same way.

"Oh hes on Fox news, dont trust the guy, yeah he must be a disinfo agent, or working behind the scenes!" Give me a break, seriously!

Ive been watching these forums now since ive been here and ive NEVER seen anything about Glenn till he went on Fox.

Its clear to me that your irrational fears of FOX news distorts every bit of information you get, regardless of who it comes from.

It doesnt matter that he hasnt changed his format or his ideas since he first began. Its just "oh hes on fox he must be the devil"

Come on people, its clear you arent being objective.

You dont believe me? Try doing a search on him on ATS and see if there is HALF as many posts on him from a year or so ago........

The people on here who operate in this manner is what discredits so many people that have valid conspiracy theories.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
He's an ENTERTAINER. A radio 'personality' on talk radio that moved to TV. Do not mistake him for some expert on world affairs, government policies, politics or anything else.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I usually don't get my news from the main stream. Not because I don't trust them, but because there's far more speculation, fear mongering, and celebrity gossip than actual NEWS. Neither of the former is worth a ounce of backside brownies compared to the latter. Mostly I get my news from various sources on the internet, the BBC, NHK, or most often from NPR Radio.

As for Glenn Beck, I don't watch him. First of all, pundits are worthless. Secondly, Glenn is an idiot even by pundit standards. I saw an interview he hosted with Ray Kurzweil to talk about the impact of the accelerating pace of technological advancement on our society and where it might take us in the future (speculation). Ray, despite his best efforts, simply couldn't get a decent conversation going. Glenn foamed at the mouth like a mongoloid over topics such as The Terminator and "Sexroids". By the end of the interview you could just see Ray's mind "Turn off" as he parried away Glenn's philistinesque comments. Might as well save the energy, he wasn't going to need it for this spot.



Judge for yourself, but from what I've seen - Glenn Beck is a waste of airspace.

[edit on 3-4-2009 by Lasheic]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Trust him with what?

Glen tells everyone that he is an "entertainer". He does not profess to be a journalist or anything else. His job is to "entertain" and to draw in as many viewers and listeners as he can. His fan base generates the big bucks for him and his boss.

If you think that Glen is an activist I think you may be being a bit hopeful. Glen is not going to rescue us from this mess.

Glen is not going to go against TPTB; he works for them.

The problem I believe is that people are trying to make Glen something that he is not.

I think it is save to believe him when he says that his job is just to "entertain" and leave it at that.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by rko_radio
 





I would not trust anything I heard on a Murdoch-owned broadcast outlet. That includes Fox, the Wall Street Journal, Sky News and many others.


I'm not going to dispute this quote.

But I do want to ask you what you think is a Trustworthy source?



NPR

BBC

and publicly funded organizations that do not have a GMO grain commercial followed by a boner pill commercial followed by a sham wow commercial.

BTW I think you enjoy the partisan ideological spin, you never post information alone,
you post information that has a whole lotta opinion... That is not NEWS in a pure form, that is modern entertainment that is intended to appeal to ideology and personality, to gain add revenue.

Fox has a small army of psychological profilers hired on as consultants/strategists. (per a friend who works in the marketing/strategy firm)
In essence you are working a finally tuned ballet which appeals to the rhetoric that you
believe.

I recall 3am -FOX "speculated" that an airplane flying from ALASKA might contain SARH PALIN who "MIGHT" become Mccains running mate... HOWEVER, being astute, it was easy to tell that they knew PALIN was going on the ticket before the official announcement. Point is FOX had a promotional schematic for PALIN before SHE became official. I watched it - FOX outlined the MCCAIN strategy to the run up to the announcement, They even used direct PALIN rhetoric before she spoke for the first time.
" SHE is known as a maverick -"

sure enough... point for point they were in lock step with the GOP candidates.

IN fact they were bolstering the MCCAIN attack Obama Strategies point for point.

Obama is a friend to terrorists - MCCAIN strategy

FOX would run five specials back to back - Obamas Terrorist friends etc...

BTW Mcclellan outlined the game... This information is outline - You want information- go outside of the states or publicly funded operations, compare information and make YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS-sir

although pre packaged is the American way


Anyhow David they have you by the balls, they cater to you and they guide you-
Beck is an agent -



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 180attoseconds

how about penn jillette from that show Penn and Teller Bull#? ive seen all their shows and they are quite logical.

theyre libertarian, theyre pro gun ownership, anti government, pro constitution and US amendment, he also was for ron paul, pro legalization of marijuana, anti global warming crap, anti scientology and bull# religious stuff, anti creationism being taught in schools as science, among many others.

but theyre against david icke, reptilians, and alien abductions (no proof), against 911 being downed by bombs,


I quite like Penn and Teller Bull# myself. I tend to agree with them on many issues. For the most part they are in line with the views of many Skeptics, Penn has had a lot of his thinking inspired by James Randi. When they did the Bull# episode on second hand smoke, they got a backlash from the Skeptic movement, and backed down and issued a correction, so I think they are essentially an extension of that group in the show.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join