February 13, 2010

Introduction

This report was prepared for the media in general, and was also sent to Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli, and Managing Editors Elizabeth Spayd and Raju Narisetti for their response.

Last summer, the Washington Post ran a promotional “Q & A” forum for Fox “news pundit” and popular radio host Glenn Beck.[i]

This report covers the broader media issues relevant to the decision to promote Beck in this Q & A forum, and includes an eye opening analysis of the relevant underlying facts — also pertinent to all media sources.  The report also shows why these issues are so strongly applicable to the Post coverage issue at hand and, by implication, more generically to most of the “Beck” coverage that we have seen over the last several years.

In terms of media coverage assumptions, this special report also helps show what might be contributing to the specific Washington Post phenomena discussed, and again, by implication, to the broader media coverage of Beck and other to some degree other highly misleading and incendiary “news” or political figures – with the single caveat that there is no one quite like Beck, and hence why he was chosen here.  The Post itself was chosen because it is considered a flagship institution, extremely influential in Washington circles, and is still, in the broader population, often portrayed as, and considered, to be a news source that skews facts in a so called “liberal” political direction in its coverage.

This report also leads up to an intriguing and very pertinent question at the end: That is, Beck’s own “common sense” inspiration, Thomas Paine, once famously asserted that “the most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason.” This report, at its conclusion, directly asks the Post’s publisher and main editors (as listed on the title page), if this is still the case today; and if so, to illustrate this by correcting the record as laid out below, in light of the ample reason supplied therein.

The Larger Patterns and Misconceptions of Media Coverage Today

If many of Beck’s own representations are to be believed, most of the principles espoused by his inspiration Thomas Paine – in direct contravention to the farcical claim of his Washington Post promoted book cover[ii] – are to be ridiculed or directly contradicted, rather than provide “common sense” book cover “inspiration.”

As we will see, amply supported below, Beck is also often wildly deceptive (or, more likely, self deceiving as well). This, while routinely underestimated (again, see infra), is bad enough for someone who commands the large audiences and constant attention that Beck does. But it takes on additional significance when he combines this with his extraordinarily inflammatory and incendiary rhetoric.

For the most part, however, as relevant and as important as this is, it has not been objectively covered in the media, other than for an occasional, abstract allusion to it — and it is a particularly far cry from the Washington Post’s promotional pandering, in lieu of hard hitting reporting, instead.

Thus, is it the Post’s claim that it’s not the newspaper’s role, as a once estimable part of our Fourth Estate – and given Beck’s wild popularity – to dispassionately, objectively, and non-partisanally examine Beck’s most incendiary claims in light of the hard, fast, objective fact “news”? Or to at least provide the appropriate underlying context and relevant information regarding what he has actually conveyed to the American people?

If this is the Post’s claim, why so? Is it due to a fear that the newspaper will be accused of “bias,” because the facts – as this report provides ample evidence of – are crazily lopsided? Thus, indented for emphasis:

Does a leading newspaper’s role become not to serve as an objective reporter of the most relevant news, information, and context, but to convince a belief driven, largely subjective, and often incorrect world that you are not “biased“?

Such role playing, of course, helps to promote the same wild subjectivity and rhetoric over fact in the first place, in a vicious circle we have seen played out for several years now. Additionally, given the nature of politics, convincing a belief driven, and often incorrect world that one is not “biased” can never be achieved anyway. That is, unless a news source merely reports 1) what those who are going to be most suspicious of the open, dispassionate, investigative, illuminating practice of journalism, and/or most driven by belief over facts, want reported, and 2) reports it in the manner they want it reported. (Somewhat like “Pravda” in the old U.S.S.R. – boosting the government rather than serving as a check upon it; or, perhaps, like “Fox” at times [iii] in the more free and independent U.S., today – boosting one side of the political spectrum at the expense of others, rather than serving as a factual check upon it all wherever the factual chips may fall.)

The media (and even many of its critics on the “left”) has completely missed this. We also seemed to have missed that the very act of journalism is by definition a classically liberal function; and needs to be precisely this, in order for our Democracy to thrive, and for an independent media to properly serve its role as an independent fourth estate “check” in order for this to happen.

Let’s be very clear here: we are not speaking of “liberal” slant (nor is the author of this report liberal politically, by the way), but of the nature of reporting itself. This document, using the case of Glenn Beck versus your newspaper’s coverage of him alone, makes this eminently clear. That is, again indented for emphasis only:

There are many people, who do not know that Beck wildly misleads them (and himself). And if a newspaper shows this – which has nothing to do with bias one way or another – it may be construed as being biased by those who do not want to accept or believe that Beck often wildly deceives himself and his audience, when it is being nothing of the sort.

By playing into this common yet false perception of bias, serving as a stenographic reflection rather than dispassionate investigative journalism source, the same misinformation and ignorance which leads to this in the first place is only further perpetuated, in the same “vicious cycle” briefly alluded to above. Notice also that serving as a stenographic reflection is almost the opposite of serving a vital, quasi public role as our Fourth Estate.[iv]

Notice that simply objective reporting will have political ramifications, particularly as the facts get further and further removed from both the rhetoric, and claims made.  As noted here[v]:

Non partisan analysis, in turn, does not refer to the implications of objective reporting — which is fact based, and yet will often have partisan ramifications — but to the analysis itself, relative to the facts, and irrespective of political ramifications or implications.

This is a critical point; one often overlooked by many in the media, and even by some covering the media.  For example, there are multiple media studies which incorrectly assess bias based upon whether articles are “favorable” or “unfavorable” toward a candidate or group, as if where the facts lie, rather than the media’s treatment (or omission) of them, is the arbiter of objectivity and bias.

…What rule of nature is there that dictates that the facts themselves must weigh equally in favor or disfavor of [one party or claim] versus [another]? None. (In fact, given human nature, and the way of politics, it is far more likely to be the opposite.) Thus favor-ability versus non favor-ability may tell us more about the [party, pundit, or claim] than it does about bias. But we can presume nothing about bias from such studies.  The only thing that correctly assesses bias is the coverage of the candidates relative to the facts.

Coverage of Beck has tilted in the exact opposite direction. Were the facts to be correctly and objectively covered, the picture presented of Beck would be extraordinarily different from the one that he represents, that the “Fox” channel carrying his TV news program represents, and what the Post represented. (Again, see text, infra.)

An objective assessment of Beck would likely paint an extremely unfavorable picture of him.  By the misguided standards routinely employed today — where what is correct is determined by the averaging out of whatever the loudest and most successful parties are shouting, rather than by the facts themselves — such a report might then be determined to be “unfavorable” to Beck, and thus biased against him, when it is nothing of the sort.

There is also another plausible, if not likely explanation, for what appears to be the Washington Post’s de facto belief that it is not its role to provide the appropriate underlying context and relevant information regarding what Beck (and others) have actually conveyed to the American people, and/or that you don’t fully see this underlying context and relevant information yourselves. And that is, it is because the Post, over the course of this past decade, actually has become biased, relative to the facts.

A great deal of evidence exists to suggest that both of these phenomena are at play here; that is, wanting to appear as “not biased,” and actual further bias on top of that, in the other direction.

But, if this is the case, it is very difficult to immediately recognize the latter, by the very nature of politics. But any newspaper can recognize the former factor likely at play here, and almost constantly in the media today; that is, the latent or even conscious concern over appearing unduly biased. And those in the news business can work – and need to work – to look more objectively and apolitically at things: understanding that looking at things apolitically is very different from those things having political ramifications, which is where the whole newspaper/ Right to Far Right tension inherent in any robust, healthy functioning free democracy comes into play.

Speaking of which, let’s now look at the Beck situation; starting, briefly, with the Post’s coverage of him, and then, some examples of the facts. This should help some of the above come into a little better focus, by way of this fairly vivid – and, given the easily explainable phenomenon of Beck, very important – example.

With respect to Beck, the Post provided this frightening, Mad Magazine type Howard Beale spin-off[vi] with a self promotional platform. And it indirectly promoted his book; ostensibly, upon the claim of popularity.

But the problem here is not that Beck is a Howard Beale character – that is fine. Or that a Howard Beale character is popular. It is with what Beck has actually represented and — as the check upon groupthink run amuck that our Fourth Estate has historically served, begins to become more of a mere reflection, of it – continues to represent to his viewers, that is the problem.

After the original Beck article appeared,  a short email was sent to the Post’s Ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, which tried to put the wild divergence between what the forum tended to promote, and Beck himself, into some sort of reasonable context. Alexander wrote back the following [emphasis all added here]:

Thanks for writing. I agree that one hour is hardly a major platform. I also believe in free speech. And I think readers are pretty smart. They can pose tough questions. If he comes off as a genius or a lunatic, they’ll know and they’ll offer their views online.

Let’s briefly address both Alexander’s response, and the paper’s depiction of Beck therein. Then we will look at the relevant underlying facts, and, lastly, draw it all together.

Alexander’s response is much appreciated.  But, unfortunately, this reply has nothing to do with the underlying issues in question. Whether it was a “major” or “minor” platform was not the point; which was, namely, that the reply of the Post (and CNN’s) “media anointed” media critic Howard Kurtz (to a reader’s query in a Q & A with Kurtz where the question of the Beck interview was brought up, with Kurtz brushing it off[vii] was completely non responsive.

As for the arbitrary one hour time distinction Kurtz does draw: if it takes less than an hour to read, or give a speech about, or conduct the underlying interview for a prominent article promoted on your home page – as this forum to Beck was – does that mean that issues with it are similarly irrelevant because it’s “not a major platform”?

With respect to the rest of Alexander’s response, the idea that we believe in “free speech,” or that “readers are pretty smart,” may sound good, but they also have absolutely nothing to do with the journalism issue at hand: Namely, the paper’s inherently promotional depiction of this highly incendiary, profoundly misinformed, and yet overly influential pundit.

The Post promoted his book with an eye capturing, large picture – page center – complete with the ironic “common sense” title, and its prominent “inspiration drawn from Thomas Paine” subtext. As you will see from the stunning examples and quotes by Paine and Beck provided below, this last claim alone – inevitably promoted by the Post’s forum – and as noted above, is somewhat farcical.

The Post even went so far as to provide a title that actually reads: “Beck on Common Sense, More,” which further plays off of and in essence promotes the pervasive “Beck” and “common sense” connection. (It may also subtly play off of another great historical thinker, Thomas More, with whom Thomas Paine is easily confused.)

Alexander also intimates that from the “tough” questions put to Beck in this context[viii] and the answers provided – again, by one of the most popular talk show hosts in the country – readers would be able to determine if he is a “genius,” or, again, quote, a “lunatic.” This is an enormous stretch. Beck has one of the most popular radio shows in the country, for a reason.

The story is that he is popular; not the de facto promotion of him, and self serving platform provision for him, somehow legitimized because he is popular.  Again, indented for emphasis:

In other words, while the appeal of Beck’s misinformation, paranoid distortions, and flat out untruths may be news – something the Post has not remotely covered in the proper context despite the fact that it is extremely important news – indirectly promoting Beck by virtue of this popularity, is an entirely different matter altogether.

But what about these “tough questions” that Alexander maintains were asked?

The fact is, questions that might shed some illumination were omitted from this forum.

Whether this was the case because readers who did participate a) were Beck supporters, (b) did not really know much about Beck’s assertions, or c) did not stay away out of revulsion at the journalistic standards employed here (or at Beck) as those with better knowledge of Beck may have, or because such questions were edited out by your staffers in their question selection, doesn’t really matter. They weren’t included in the Q&A.

Yet attempting to include such questions would have been problematic anyway, as there is not much to discuss in this context:

For example, if Beck utters something that is a proven, objective, falsity – or, for example, is condemned more harshly by his own sentiments on other occasions (which of course, he forgets or does not see) than perhaps anything else could have, what is there to debate about it? Thus what types of questions could possibly have been relevant?

Let’s consider an example:

Dear Mr. Beck, why do you not only state a very large number of things that are wildly incendiary, but also do so in the context of repeatedly giving out, and relying upon, erroneous and misleading information.

Is that a question? Still, Beck could answer somewhat convincingly, if not brilliantly, how that is not the case and in fact quite persuasively claim the opposite.

The reader could then, in turn, do what? Take over your forum and provide a list that is dozens of pages long of objective facts, with documented support, illustrating Beck’s continued pattern of profoundly ignorant, manipulative, and erroneous claims, assertions and statements that would in fact show that it is the case? (As is in fact done below in abbreviated fashion.) Is the Post’s “hour long forum” going to provide the necessary examination of statements and underlying facts necessary for readers to be able to arrive at any sort of reasonably accurate determination on this not?

Of course not.

Moreover, not one question was even remotely revealing.  Again, indented for emphasis:

There is no way for readers of the Post’s forum to get any idea of the types of extremely misinformed, profoundly misleading, and extraordinarily inflammatory assertions that Beck has repeatedly made. Thus Alexander’s idea that readers — from a promotional platform with his “common sense” book and theme fore and center — with the master himself fielding a few unchallenged softballs, could get a true sense of Beck, is way off base.

Again, it is not the idea of rhetorical, or even Howard Beale like, claims that are the problem; the problem is their sometimes, if not frequent, reliance upon wildly distorted, and often completely made up facts.

The Post’s promotional forum only serves to support, and even indirectly promote, the idea of the former — by both providing Beck with this self serving, and legitimizing platform and “common sense” theme and book promotion — while doing absolutely nothing to address the far more newsworthy, and relevant, latter.

The underlying problem, however, doesn’t even stem from the questions asked, or not asked: which, as we have seen above, in this limited promotional context simply can not work anyway in terms of assessing how a wildly misleading figure, given an hour platform to promote himself, is in fact wildly misleading. The problem stems from the decision to promote Beck in the first place, by starting with the same old standard that no matter what is stated on one “side” to a theoretical “debate,” it must be of equal value and weight to some notion of the “other” side.

Therefore, this very prevalent but highly illogical thinking goes, Beck must by definition be one side to a “reasonable debate.” Under this mode of thinking, objectivity is no longer determined by hard data or dispassionate reasoning, but an averaging out of what whoever is motivated to and best at shouting out, is claiming.

That’s not a Fourth Estate Check; that’s a stenographic institutionalization of rhetoric and groupthink run amuck.

The problem also stems from the similar, and intensely anti-journalism idea that popularity and value, when it comes to news, facts, and analytical insight, must be equated, as opposed to the relevance or “fact” of the popularity itself simply being pointed out.

For example, former half term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is popular.  Thus, for example, with respect to Palin, it’s not just “journalism” for the Post to selectively publish provocative, challenging, editorialization, for example, but, to the Post, incorrectly, also “journalism” to selectively publish and promote wildly misleading and almost incredibly misinformed spin to the Post’s readers and the American public.[ix]

The two don’t remotely equate. Yet the Washington Post newspaper is equating them.

Here, with respect to Beck, the Post went further than the increasingly common tendency to incorrectly equate “balance” and journalistic integrity – as opposed to the false appearance of it – with the mere parroting of two seemingly equal “sides” without regard to underlying fact or context. As a result, it did not even simply present Beck as if he was one of two factually equate-able sides,which is bad enough itself. Instead, it invariably promoted and Beck’s legitimacy therein, by virtue of this ridiculously pollyannaish Q&A presentation – let alone with its “Common Sense” book cover image prominently displayed fore and center, and your promotional “common sense” Q&A forum title.

Not only are readers mislead, but Beck’s credibility, and legitimacy are bolstered — with no context, balance, perspective, or underlying fact provided but Beck’s own self advertising therein.

Thomas Paine, Mr. Beck’s claimed front cover “inspiration,” had this to say: “It is an affront to treat falsehood with complaisance.” The Washington Post newspaper went further.  By indirectly promoting Beck, it promoted the falsehood of Beck.

Some Examples that Place the Post’s Promotional Forum in Context

Let’s take a look now, at Beck, in contrast:

In the Q&A Beck starts off declaring “the only that [sic] would destroy America is us, from the inside.” A few sentences in, he asserts; “Bill Maher said this weekend that Barack Obama was George Bush Lite. What are we fighting over? What is the difference between these two parties? There are reasons to speak out, but tearing ourselves apart over these scraps of freedom is odd.”

Contrast these wildly out of context statements with the fact that Beck, outside of your forum, also asserts that the homicidal actions of James Von Brunn are a natural result of Obama’s policies; that Al Gore is “like Goebbels or Hitler” based on the fact that Gore made a movie about climate change which Beck claims, “lies;”[x] that the victims of the New Orleans Katrina tragedy are “scumbags,” whom he hates; and with his sentiment that “I didn’t think I could hate victims faster than the 9-11 victims.”[xi]

Consider a few more real life examples, of the “tolerance, reasonable discourse, and ‘common sense’” Beck whom you lopsidedly promoted:

Beck: “I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out.”[xii]

Beck, further back, “I want to kill [Rep.] Charlie Rangel with a shovel,” several times.

Contrast those imbalanced homicidal fantasies with Beck’s assertion in your cushy common sense promotional Q&A forum: “I think we need to model ourselves after Martin Luther King and Gandhi.”

After your forum appeared, Beck continued his streak of fantasizing about murdering and death – by strangulation, by a shovel, and by flames (see below) – and now by poisoning, by playing out a mock poisoning of Democratic Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and stating he was thinking about doing just that.

Or, contrast Beck’s “Martin Luther King” and “Gandhi” statement with his assertion last year that, “every night I get down on my knees and pray that Dennis Kucinich will burst into flames.” This pundit also seems to have a fascination with flames and burning; again, not exactly something which comes across on your “common sense” promotional forum, where Beck, again, unchecked, instead further bolsters his own legitimacy, credibility, and apparent reasonableness with your newspaper’s indirect promotional support. This spring, he even poured pretend gasoline (water) out of a gas can onto a guest, and held up a lit match to simulate what he suggested President Obama was doing to the American people.

Do you suppose, to use his Washington Post supported lingo, that this is just more of Beck’s good natured, “reasonable” on air battle to promote debate and keep us from “tearing ourselves apart”?

Kucinich, however “left” leaning he might have been – clearly reasonable grounds for such a promoter, according to his Washington Post gifted Q&A, of “vigorous debate,” to wish someone to “burst into flames” – was somewhat of a defender of individual rights at the hands of an autocratic state. This is something that surely we can all agree any blossominganti-Fascist should themselves be moderately concerned with. Yet here was the self promoting “anti-Fascist” Beck, not promoting Kucinich, but, essentially, wishing him dead.

Beck ascribed “empathy” on the part of Hitler as part of his push for eugenics and the (sick as it makes one feel to even use or consider the word in this context) “euthanasia” of the mentally disabled. He ridiculously believes that “almost everyone who does believe in global warming (or that it can be fixed, he later added) is a socialist.”

Even worse, Beck described a letter criticizing Al Qaeda in Iraq as “surprising” because “the man who wrote it is a Muslim.”

This is breathtaking, and almost frightening, in its ignorance for someone with prominent national shows and whose book “Common Sense” you promoted with your pollyannaish Q&A and title material placement and de facto legitimization (see infra).

On Carbon Dioxide, Beck, while exhaling, stated; “I’m going to harm the planet. I’m going to give some CO2 off…That should have been bottled and kept away from the planet because that’s a dangerous gas.” He asked “How could carbon dioxide be a poison when it’s naturally occurring and the trees use it to grow?” But, Beck’s incorrect use of the word “poison” aside, instead of actually trying to find the answer, Beck added, quite vehemently, “Stop. Just stop, will you? Stop with the lies!”  Indented here again, as an analogy:

This is close to the scientific equivalent of, say, accusing the government of dropping diplomats off the edge of the world to certain death when it flies them to China, since China is directly “below us” and we all know gravity makes things fall – and then when it is explained how gravity works and that it emanates from the center of a body, not its shell, screaming out in response “Stop, stop with the lies, will you!”

Consider how big a lie the person who made a big deal about “stopping with the lies,” told here, whether out of blatant deception; or, once again, profound ignorance. Yet it’s not the only big lie Beck has told. There are countless.

But consider one told during the same moments where he was repeatedly simulating Obama pouring gasoline on the American people; “He’s also closing Gitmo and letting the terrorists onto the streets!”

Quick, try to come up with a much bigger lie than that; Obama by closing Gitmo is letting the terrorists onto the streets. How inflammatory and misleading do you think that was, while he was suggesting, and metaphorically showing, Obama pouring gasoline on the American people and simulating lighting them on fire.

Beck has also come dangerously close to inciting actual violence against the President. For example, this past spring [2009] he showed a ghoulish picture onscreen of a younger looking Obama with a few other Democrats, alluded to them as bloodsuckers, and subsequently stated “…These bloodsucker vampires are not gonna just be satisfied with sucking the blood out of [business], their thirst for power and control is unquenchable. They will not stop… Either the economy becomes like the walking dead, or ya (with great stated emphasis here) drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers.”

The person who inflamed his audience over lit match simulations of the President pouring gasoline over the American people while also telling them blatant and even more inflammatory lies about the President, is the same person who also wildly mislead his audience on a matter of science, while excoriating others on the matter, who were not lying, to “Stop. Just stop, will you? Stop with the lies!”

It’s like the spouse who comes home after repeatedly cheating on his faithful wife, who then starts screaming at and repeatedly attacking her for being unfaithful while yelling at her to get mental help. It’s not less deceptive (or, in Beck’s case, quite possibly simple ignorance). And the Washington Post, along with much of the rest of the media, has promoted this “pundit” as if he just a “conservative” voice, and one side to a “debate.”

“Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed. Man cannot make principles; he can only discover them.”

Who said that? Once again, Thomas Paine, the “inspiration for” Beck’s book; on its cover, and as promoted by you, on your ridiculous “forum.”

Beck asked how CO2 could be considered a “poison,” when we breathe it out. Yet instead of even trying to discover the answer to his question, to those who try to convey basic, incontrovertible science – 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, 2) greenhouse gases trap heat, 3) heat drives climate, 4) because of man’s fossil fuel and non regenerative agricultural activities, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are from a geologic perspective accelerating at breakneck speed, and 5) this is probably a bad thing – he shouted “Stop with the lies.”

Sort of like someone shouting to Christopher Columbus, who “claimed” that the world was round, “stop with the lies;” but doing so in 1958. And then writing a book, claiming on his front cover, “inspired by Thomas Paine,” and the Washington Post promoting it with a nice picture front and center, and providing a legitimizing forum for the purveyor of all of this misinformation to further sell and promote himself.

The theme of hating, calling despicable names, or homicidally fantasizing about those with whom he disagrees – of the Washington Post promoted “we need to model ourselves after Gandhi and Martin Luther King” Beck — (never mind the irony that most of the time Beck doesn’t even have enough facts to even know why he disagrees or if he truly does) is rampant in this incendiary Machiavellian Charlatan purveyor of paranoia and misinformation:

For example, your “common sense” peddler seems to also know next to nothing regarding the strange story of Nick Berg, yet called Berg’s anti-war protestor father “despicable” and “a scumbag” two days after his son’s shocking beheading appeared on worldwide video. Perhaps Beck, even if he did not agree with the actions of Berg’s father, might not have found him so “despicable” had he considered the following quote by the man whom Beck both plagiarized his book title from, and claims it was inspired by, as promoted on your pages:

“He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death.”

Never mind also that Berg had allegedly been an Iraq war supporter, and yet was bound in custody for close to two weeks by the U.S. military in Iraq (until his father brought suit against the government) shortly before his unusually timed and gruesome demise at the hands of apparent insurgent extremists: Beck also accused Berg’s father, shortly after his son’s shocking Internet beheading, of exploiting this politically.

Beck exploits almost everything politically. Yet any action by Berg’s father – an overly avid anti-War protestor whose son, for unknown reasons, was arrested in Iraq and only released after his activism on his son’s behalf just prior to his subsequent, and untimely execution – similarly speaking out, instead of now being of even greater relevance, is “political exploitation,” and the overwrought father who just lost a son to a vicious beheading, a “despicable” “scumbag.” Whatever Beck says is legitimate, whatever those whom he disagrees with is “political exploitation.”

An example of confusing popularity with factual legitimacy was provided in the links above, involving former half term governor Sarah Palin. Probably not by coincidence, Palin does exactly this same thing — accusing others, with not a whit of evidence or basis, of being “political,” while what Palin does, is of course not.  Beck just also routinely adds on how he hates their guts, and fantasizes about killing them.  (And not surprisingly, Beck, who finally got to meet, and, rather eerily, interview, Palin, is apparently quite taken with her.)

Beck also accused the 9-11 victims, whom he “hates,” of exploitation. Is it okay for all other Americans on issues of terrorism to speak out, based upon their own perspectives, as part of our necessary political process; but yet the families of those brutally murdered by actual acts of terrorism, on the other hand, are engaging in political exploitation if they do so? Or is it that they are only being exploitative, and worthy of being “hated,” when Beck disagrees with them.

By this definition – it is “exploitation” by those most affected by an event to speak publicly in relation to it – there is nothing that can be done or said which is not “exploitative.” Or is it just again, exploitative when Beck doesn’t agree with the things someone is saying.

Is such extreme narrow-mindedness the type of “common sense” that Thomas Paine, our great forefather and inspiration for Beck as promoted by your forum, was known for?

To answer that, consider why Beck “hated” the 9-11 victims. Once again, Beck’s “common sense” book inspiration, Paine himself; “It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.” Yet Beck hated the 9-11 victims, in his own words, for “asking questions.” That is “seeking inquiry” rather than shrinking from it.

Beck repeatedly condemns fascism, and otherwise ridiculously accuses a steady stream of rather normal souls of being fascist, Nazis, or “like Hitler.” But fascism – quite unlike our democracy here in America that is grounded in part upon the notion of presumed innocence – is based instead upon the notions of presumed guilt, and of course, more famously, guilt by simple association.

However, to Keith Ellison, our nation’s first Muslim Congressman – all the while illustrating a destructive feel for precisely how to frame the issue in order to foolishly help turn the battle against terrorists into a battle against the world’s second most popular religion, and demarginalize,de-fringe, that extremist, psychotic element that resorts to horrific acts of terrorism against innocents – Beck exhibited precisely this trait, and stated, “[What] I feel like saying is, Sir, prove to me that you are notworking with our enemies.”  Has our society, led by such dumbed down coverage, become so dulled to basic logic and sensibilities, that the profundity of such a statement been lost upon us? The smartest thing we can do to thwart and eradicate terrorism (in addition to eradicating  terrorist themselves) is to work to disconnect and further radicalize the perception of psychotic extremists, from the broad second most populous religion from which their fringe sect hails.   The most fascist tendency we can exhibit, is the one that non stop “anti -fascist” Beck exhibited, by believing that innocence must be proven simply by virtue of generic association to race, creed, or religion.

Beck has also stated, on several occasions, that if otherwise “completely innocent” Muslims (i.e.,almost all of the Muslim population) don’t affirmatively act to stop “bad” Muslims, they might wind up “behind barbed wire,” a la concentration camps. (And it wasn’t always just in the form of an observation, either.)  Not Marcus Brauchli, Post Executive Editor, or Katharine Weymouth, Post Publisher, who have no such duty, but innocent Muslims.

Aside from the profound ignorance, assumed guilt by association, bastardization of an entire group, and effect of further division and misinformation, also contrast this once again with the inspirational words of Beck’s professed cover “inspiration,” Thomas Paine:

“Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and the bane of all good society.” Or:

“If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately.”

Yet this is the same “common sense” Beck who is so profoundly ignorant, and suspicious, on the subject matter, he was “surprised” that a letter condemning al-Qaeda was written by a Muslim.

It is hard to fathom the words to accurately describe the almost dangerous lack of cultural and political “common sense,” sense of an otherwise nationally known news pundit, whom your newspaper would indirectly promote with the absurdly “common sense” labeled book fore and center, who could be surprised that a Muslim – the great majority of whom are normal souls and not connected to al-Qaeda and thus naturally abhor acts of psychotic, depraved violence – would condemn al-Qaeda.

Beck’s alleged inspiration also had this to say:

“Every religion is good that teaches man to be good; and I know of none that instructs him to be bad.”

When expressing “surprise” that a letter condemning the radical psychopathic terrorist group al-Qaeda was written by a Muslim, Beck must have missed that one by Paine too, or otherwise somehow mistaken it as professing the idea that all Muslims either are, or support, psychotic terrorists.

Recently (but also prior to your forum date, as are all these examples but for the one as noted above regarding Nancy Pelosi murder fantasies), the man presented on your forum under the title “Beck on ‘Common Sense,’More,” and whose book, “Common Sense…Inspired by Thomas Paine,” is prominently displayed on the page front and center, declared that:

“Gun sales are going through the roof,” because “…a lot of Americans aren’t paying attention to this…the poem…first they came for the Jews and I didn’t stand up because I wasn’t a Jew? ….in the end, I think this is the problem. First, they came for the banks. I wasn’t a banker….I didn’t stand up and say anything. Then they came for the AIG executives….Then they came for the car companies — and I didn’t say anything………Until it gets down to you — most people don’t see they are coming for you at some point…”

Except we didn’t exactly “come after” bankers, AIG executives, or car companies, in the way Beck insinuates, in so much as arming oneself would be a reasonable response. We actually gave them money – taxpayer money. A slight (and hopefully temporary) tinge of very lightly socialism (or corporate welfare) leaning tendencies with narrow respect to “economic crisis” industry support is not fascism, nor a call to arms to defend oneself against an imperialistic government. It is a call, for those who disagree, to proclaim their concern over government involvement.

But just not to the “tolerance promoting and anti violence” Glenn Beck (see, e.g., the Washington Post Glenn Beck book promotional hour), who would instead rather rally the people to outraged anger and actual arms against a President who would metaphorically light them on fire, and now soon may actually be coming to get them.

Consider one last, even more frightening, example of Beck’s rather profound “common sense,  inspired by” Thomas Paine. Beck:

“Al Gore’s not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government…You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler’s plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore’s enemy, the U.N.’s enemy: global warming…Then you get the scientists – eugenics. You get the scientists – global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists who say, ‘That’s not right.’ And you must silence all dissenting voices. That’s what Hitler did.”

Beck, in his Q&A: “What people need to keep in mind is that some people in the fringe groups are CRAZY.” As are some people who are on the air, and TV shows, and who are given even further credibility by the Washington Post. And who often themselves further foment and promote such craziness, routinely.

et the mainstream media has taken further and further extreme figures, and extremely manipulative and misleading rhetoric as a result, and legitimized it; thus rendering much of our public discussion on critical issues either false, or incomplete, misleadingly, simplistically, and often manipulatively, framed.

Consider Beck’s comparison of Gore to Hitler here, based on the fact that Gore suggests that our global atmosphere that is being altered by global net greenhouse gas emissions is a global problem, where Gore is “silencing all dissenting voices,” sort of like “Hitler did.” Block quoted, for emphasis:

In Beck’s world, disagreement with and pointing out the weakness of counter-arguments – a basic engine of democracy – is “silencing” dissenting voices a la Hitler; whereas calling everyone Hitler that he disagrees with (even when he, Beck, himself, is profoundly wrong on the underlying issue or facts as well), on the other hand, is perfectly fine.

It is hardly possible to do justice in a few sound bites to the ignorance and deceitfulness, not to mention logical depravity, of Beck’s statement comparing Gore to Hitler – because Gore wants to address a growing, and likely severe, global ecological problem, and Hitler actively wanted (and tried) to exterminate huge groups of the population, and sought world domination and control.

It is so ridiculously manipulated, so incomplete, and so outrageously misleading on so many levels, it might just qualify for the prestigious Sistine Chapel Ceiling award, for the most profoundly ignorant and fomenting work of short speech as art form yet proffered by an American pundit.  Yet interestingly, it is Sarah Palin, whom as suggested above most closely mirrors Beck yet without most of the hatred, excessive inflammation, and much of the theatrics, of whom your own Kathleen Parker (a conservative) once famously stated: ‘If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street all by herself.” Beck could probably do it, and light everything else on fire, all at the same time.

Conclusion, and A Washington Post Question

Huey Long once famously said that “Fascism will come, in the name of anti-fascism.” Beck sure spends a lot of time railing against fascism for someone who continually exhibits many of its underlying driving foundations.

But yet it is “free speech,” according to the Post’s Ombudsman, not just to allow Beck to do this, but to legitimize and promote him and his book by providing it a prominent display, and him a cutesy “common sense” titled forum for further self promotion?

Yes, it is “free speech,” on the part of the Washington Post, to do so.

But it is also free speech to point out how such indirect promotion, credibility bolstering, and legitimizing reflects either an excessive lack of comprehension of the issues which Beck covers and a thorough lack of journalistic regard for reasonably comprehensive logic and reasoning thresholds, a journalistically lamentable lack of knowledge with respect to Beck himself, and/or an abysmally unprofessional attempt to pander once again to the perceived criticism from the far right.  All of which serve as a remarkably far cry from the Fourth Estate check upon power and the powerful, government, misrepresentation, groupthink, and rhetoric run amuck that a vibrant democracy requires.

The Post gave a platform for (self) promotion of this person as a purveyor of “common sense,” in a prominent forum, to say nothing of the promotion of his ironically entitled book and your forum title of the same phrase. And then in defense The Washington Post, at least as represented by its Ombudsman, confused this with the wholly irrelevant issue of “free speech,” which would in fact involve Glenn Beck’s right to say these things — not the depravity and ignorance of them; or the newspaper’s right to promote Glenn Beck — not the journalistic depravity, ignorance, and pandering of so doing.

Again, without information such as presented in this memorandum, Post readers who are painted Beck’s online picture of his own sensibilities have no way of putting them in the proper context; let alone considering the fantastically ironic contrast with his actual history of illogic, and crazily inflamed and wildly misleading communications. All readers are presented with is a deluded notion of fancy provided – courtesy of the paper – by that master of rhetorical spin and self and audience deception, framed in the apparatus of a mainstream legitimizing promulgation of this individual’s commentary, along with the prominent display of his wildly ironic and absurdly titled book, “Common Sense…Inspired by Thomas Paine.”

This report, in addition to the last and most important question posited to the Post just below, concludes with the strong suggestion that if the actual media (as opposed to the station that Beck has a show on, which most of the rest of the media continues to kowtow to instead of treating as the separate, and enormous, advocacy “media” story that it is) wants to cover Glenn Beck because he is a big name – do something useful, and informative – an expose of who he is, the things he says, and what they mean; not provide a platform to promote him, and thus his profound ignorance, profound manipulation and utter insanity (or whatever one wants to label it) already fostered upon millions of  Americans directly (and tens of millions more indirectly) as “common sense analysis.”

But that is precisely what the Washington Post did.

As noted at the outset, Thomas Paine also said “The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason.” This report has presented the Post (as well as the rest of the media, Fair and Balanced “Fox” aside), with ample reason.

Let us see if Paine, who wrote in the 1700s, is yet, in the rhetoric inflamed, sound bite driven, and “false balance” obsessed media of the 2000’s, still correct. Unfortunately, and disturbingly, evidence is mounting that he is not.

The publication of this document provides a grand opportunity for Washington Post Publisher Katharine Weymouth, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli, and Managing Editors Raju Narisetti and Elizabeth Spayd, to prove this wrong, at least with respect to leading newspapers, and publicly correct the record.

Endnotes:
_________________________

[i] Washington Post online discussion with Glenn Beck, “Pundit Glenn Beck on ‘Common Sense,’ More,” Glenn Beck, June15, 2009.

[ii] It should be noted that of the article page column itself, over one third of the column, on the top half of the page, is taken up by a full color photograph of Beck’s book, entitled “Common Sense,” with the “inspired by Thomas Paine” inscription on the front.  This central, and promotional visualization takes on particular significance in consideration of the facts laid out in the examples part of the text above

[iii] This is not the place to go into the methodology of what is exceedingly generously, and yet rather commonly referred to as Fox News, or its underestimated impact upon the rest of our media today.  But a simple juxtaposition of some of the examples above concerning Beck, and the fact that he is a staple part of Fox’s “news lineup,” ought to at least help to start to bring the issue into a little clearer focus.  Another example, although (rightly or wrongly) sometimes considered a partisan, if somewhat valid piece, is the movie Outfoxed, which details “Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism.”  Details can be found at www.outfoxed.org.

[iv] There is a lot of confusion today over what our Fourth Estate correctly entails. Many confuse this idea with the simple right to speak out freely, and thus, with the explosion of blogs and opinionating on the Internet today. The Internet has given further voice, for many (while simultaneously, by the parameters of pure popularity rather than quality, drowning out others) to speak out freely.  The Internet offers a tremendous repository for information (as well as misinformation) and perhaps far too much editorializing.  The Internet itself can provide a democratic forum for points to be made, and arguments to be heard. But the Internet itself, as opposed to verifiable, documentable, professional reports on it (which themselves often have be looked at skeptically) is a modern version of the simple right to speak, and offer an opinion. It serves as a popularizing and technologically expedizing equivalent of the village square.  This is not a Fourth Estate, nor a substitute for it.  Not coincidentally, at the same time that various media sources proclaim how the Internet has made critical information available, the level of our national public dialogue – which, in a democracy, is ultimately what matters – has become increasingly misinformed.

[v] NewsAffair.Org, “Media Critic Howard Kurtz Exhibits Powerful Bias,” January 5, 2010..

[vi] Beale is a character from the famous 1976 film, “Network,” starring Faye Dunaway.  A classic scene from the movie, link here, illustrates both the similarities between the Beale and Beck characters, as well as, juxtaposed with the facts above, the very disturbing differences.

[vii] Washington Post online discussion with Howard Kurtz, “Howard Kurtz Critiques the Press and analyzes the media,” June 15, 2009.  Here is an example of Kurtz in another online chat, September 14, 2009:  “imagine that a mid-level energy advisor in the Bush White House was found to have signed a document calling the Holocaust a hoax” in partial defense of Glenn Beck’s successful crusade to force controversial White House green jobs advisor Van Jones’s resignation. Van Jones’ name was on the document (a petition), but Jones denies signing it or that it was correctly represented to him.  More importantly, the petition, whatever one thinks of it, did not say that 9/11 was a hoax, or that it was pulled off by the government.  The petition calls for inquiry into evidence suggesting, according to it, that government officials had foreknowledge of the impending attacks and failed to act.  While there is plenty of evidence to indicate that the prior administration was soundly asleep at the switch (this report was compiled by a Liberal think tank, but covers several incontrovertible, but severely under reported, facts) in the face of dire warnings from top outgoing and incoming officials both, we don’t agree with the petition here. But it is hardly what Beck, or Kurtz here, make it out to be, or clear how an investigation into the underlying evidence is soundly anti Democratic.  Examples like this of Kurtz, a top media appointed expert, abound.

[viii] Here are some examples of the “tough” questions put to Beck:  “Do you really believe that the USA is facing destruction?”  “If you were the President right now, how would you handle the financial crisis inherited from the previous administration?”  “Should liberals be afraid to say what they believe about the best way forward for the U.S.?” “What do you think about the current crop of likely Republican presidential contenders for 2012.”  Here were the two “toughest:”  “Isn’t regulation really a common sense approach to containing human greed?”   “How do you balance providing your viewpoint with making sure not to push fringe groups over the edge towards violence?” Becks answer to that last one, in light of just some of his quotes highlighted in the text above, is illustrative:  “Anybody who thinks that I’m pushing fringe groups to violence should read my e-mail.” And to what was the toughest question of all, referencing calls for violence in comments on his web site, and what he thinks about that, Beck actually responded “Anyone who is making threats or thinking about violence on any side of any issue is not only foolish, they will be the ones who destroy the republic.” But then this is the same person who repeatedly fantasizes on the air about various ways to murder people whom he disagrees with, while saying, in his Washington Post “interview” how we have to model ourselves after Martin Luther King, and “Gandhi.”

[ix] NewsAffair.Org, “Palin, the Post, and Climate Change – What All Americans Should Know, Parts V, IV, and II, January 4, 2010, and December 31 and December 27, 2009, respectively.

[x] http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200606080005 with audio. .

[xi]http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200509090003, with audio.

[xii] For the statement by Beck in particular in this frightening report, see minute 7:53, Bill Moyers Journal,