The cover story of Time Magazine for this week is “Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America?”
“As melodrama, it’s thumping good stuff. But as politics, it’s sort of a train wreck — at once powerful, spellbinding and uncontrolled. Like William Jennings Bryan whipping up populist Democrats over moneyed interests or the John Birch Society brooding over fluoride, Beck mines the timeless theme of the corrupt Them thwarting a virtuous Us. This flexible narrative often contains genuinely uncomfortable truths. Some days “they” are the unconfirmed policy “czars” whom Beck fears Obama is using to subvert constitutional government — and he has some radical-sounding sound bites to back it up. Some days “they” are the network of leftist community organizers known as ACORN — and his indictment of the group is looking stronger every day. But he also spins yarns of less substance. He tells his viewers that Obama’s volunteerism efforts are really an attempt to create a “civilian national-security force that is just as strong, just as powerful as the military.” . . . In his recent instabook — Glenn Beck’s Common Sense, a huge best seller, with more than 1 million copies moved in less than four months — he wrote, “Most Americans remain convinced that the country is on the wrong track. They know that SOMETHING JUST DOESN’T FEEL RIGHT but they don’t know how to describe it or, more importantly, how to stop it.” The book’s pox-on-both-parties populism evokes the quixotic campaigns of Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot, but with an eerie sound track.
Nevertheless, my question remains: Should we care what Beck is doing? Putting aside the obvious First Amendment arguments, I contend that people who immediately attack commentators like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh as being bad for America are failing to see another major factor - that is, the public itself. In my view, the public is equally at fault for listening and believing every word these pundits say. Without a doubt Beck is feeding off of the public’s fears at his own benefit by making a high monetary profit, as Drehle criticizes; without a doubt Beck is basing his arguments on little to no substance; and without a doubt people like Beck add nothing of value to legitimate policy debates that are going on. But why should this end the debate? The public is equally at fault not only for making Beck profitable by tuning in to his broadcasts, but also by serving as the source of his fear-mongering.
To be clear, I denounce people like Beck. To the extent that their ranting is without merit and baseless, and that it capitalizes on people’s fears, I think there is something morally repugnant about that. But I think when people like Drehle immediately criticize the commentators themselves, they are failing to see that an equal problem is the public itself. The anger to which Beck is appealing and from which he is profiting didn’t start with Beck. It is a creation of the public itself; Beck merely feeds off of it. For instance, when Tea Party protestors are raving that they’re “Mad as Hell,” the issue should shift from Beck to whether people have a valid reason to be this mad, which only creates opportunities for people like Beck. Indeed, the public allows and enables people like Beck to become popular, because the public itself is the very source of the fear and emotions that open the door for the Glenn Becks of the world.
I think you make a good point, 2nd. It’s easy to be critical of Beck while at the same time ignoring or marginalizing his fans as a bunch of racists.
That said, Beck has tapped into a vein of our politics that is often ugly. I used to be a casual fan of his, but after Beck slandered Obama as a racist I’ve written off the Fox News pundit. It’s impossible to take anyone seriously after an incident like that. Indeed, of all the shrill and ridiculous things said by major partisan pundits about Bush and Obama in the last eight years that might be the worst.
Of course, the Time Magazine cover just perpetuates the cycle of both sides feeding off each other. Liberals will reinforce their views of how awful this man is – a modern day Father Coughlin/Joe McCarthy. Beck fans will see it as further evidence of the elite media trying to put them down.
Good post. You are right that the public enables people like Beck (or Michael Savage, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, and Keith Olbermann) and that there needs to be more critical reflection about the relationship between sensationalism and reality.
That said, the fact that these talking heads are indeed so popular indicates that they have tapped into something that shouldn’t be ignored. I’m not sure if it is the ugly vein of politics ConnScript mentions or a craving for some bridge between fact and fiction. But as much as I don’t like them, it is hard to deny that cable news has some degree of value.
The larger question, in my opinion, is what Beck and others owe the public from an ethical perspective. Of course the First Amendment protects them legally, but are they bound by the traditional code of ethics to which esteemed journalists adhere? Or are they instead representative of some hybrid of current events and entertainment that demands the slimy standards of Hollywood?
I don’t know.
“The larger question, in my opinion, is what Beck and others owe the public from an ethical perspective. Of course the First Amendment protects them legally, but are they bound by the traditional code of ethics to which esteemed journalists adhere? Or are they instead representative of some hybrid of current events and entertainment that demands the slimy standards of Hollywood?”
I don’t think people like Beck “owe” the public anything from an ethical perspective. However, what I do think they – as well as all journalists – owe the public is honest and non-misleading news coverage. To the extent that Beck holds himself out as a “journalist,” as a member of that profession, he has a duty to convey facts honestly and supported by accurate reports. Thus, when Beck calls Obama a “racist,” this is blatant hearsay, and because it is coming from the mouth of someone who holds himself out as a journalist, he is doing the public a disservice by intentionally misleading it.
I want to stress that my point is that Beck holds himself out as a journalist. If Beck was a late-night talk show host, then the situation would be different. Obviously, when talk show hosts like Letterman poke fun at people like Palin, it is blatantly misleading and false. However, I don’t take issue with this because talk show hosts, like Letterman, don’t portray themselves as informed journalists conveying news; people assume that anything they say is mere hyperbole, or in any event, can’t be taken as fact. If Beck makes clear that his show is what is – merely a talk show – than I would hold him to the same standard as people like Letterman and forgive his empty rhetoric. But to the extent that he portrays himself as a journalist, or an expert on political affairs, he is intentionally misleading the public, and thus, in my mind, acting unethically whenever he conveys stories not based on fact.