Why does Glenn Beck still have a job?
Empire Zone does a nice job of summarizing Glenn Beck's musings on drowning New York City.
According to a CNN transcript of the program “Glenn Beck on Headline News,†when it was suggested that a hurricane could cause a 20- to 25-foot storm surge in New York City, Mr. Beck said, “Actually, that would clean the streets out. It might not be bad.†Liberal blogs have cried foul, noting that studies show such a storm would cause “heavy loss of life.†One local blog’s summary: “Glenn Beck wants to kill you.†(It should be noted his show is based here.)
So you have to wonder: why aren't people talking about this? And why does the man still have a job?
As the Zone notes, it's the liberal blogs, pretty much alone, that are talking about this; certainly not the rightwing blogs (who are more interested in hysterically yapping about war with Mexico and muttering darkly about their crypto-terrorist luggage). You might think that those folks would occasionally wonder if their allies aren't bigger threats than whatever it is that they exercise themselves over so loudly and often. But that would require a bit of critical distance from the rightwing Kool-Aid, and that's a step none of these folks seem ready or able to take.
So you have to wonder: what would they be saying if some leftwing outlet – say, The Nation – called for, killing Glenn Beck? Maybe, while we're speculating, by sodomizing him with a broken whiskey bottle?
There'd be no end of dismay, no end of outraged demands for abject apologies from the entire left. We'd be caricatured as Stalinists, there'd be the usual screeching about how 'liberals just can't stand freedom of speech', and so on and so forth. Seen it all before, been there, done that. Ward Churchill.
So why the silence now? Here's a thought: these rightist blogs want to play a role in rebuilding their shattered party in this state. It would help if they decided to hold their own guys to what are known as 'basic standards of decency'. One word: credibility.
As to the media, it's pretty clear that rightwing hate speech still isn't a subject they cover; for some reason, the other side pretty much gets a pass on that (unless it's about race, witness Trent Lott). True enough, the story that some rightwinger is calling for (or gloating over the possibility of) the death of other Americans isn't news, because it happens all the time; but shouldn't it be? What kind of country are we when it's not news that some blustering fool wishes for a wall of water to 'cleanse' the country's largest city? How can this just be glossed over? Do we need to wait until the next rightwing nutjob blows up the next office building? Where do people think on-air musings about exterminating your fellow citizens lead to?
The good folks over at My Two Sense have a petition, calling on CNN to fire Beck, here, and provide a link to CNN's feedback page, here.
Somebody needs to say that wishing for the destruction of an American city needs to have consequences. It would just be nice if that weren't the job of the liberal blogs.
(Originally posted at The Daily Gotham)
Post to Twitterblog comments powered by Disqus ">
This article is absurd cause it cannot Fathom Sarcasm
When did you people LOSE your sense of "Sarcasm"?
"According to a CNN transcript of the program “Glenn Beck on Headline News,†when it was suggested that a hurricane could cause a 20- to 25-foot storm surge in New York City, Mr. Beck said, “Actually, that would clean the streets out. It might not be bad.†Liberal blogs have cried foul, noting that studies show such a storm would cause “heavy loss of life.†One local blog’s summary: “Glenn Beck wants to kill you.†(It should be noted his show is based here.)"
If you CANNOT SEE what he was saying, then maybe you should return to the Second Grade to re-learn what you have Obviously forgotten.
My Niece, (a 10 year old) would Laugh at this.
- reply
- 0 points
I'm not up on the situation you describe
But I am rather well informed on historic severe weather events in our not too distant past.
My post RE severe weather observations of the Middle Ages clearly lists freezes floods and inundations that if experienced in the modern day would be amplified by the population densities of major cities of not just our country, but around the world.
My use of the refernce is to try and raise awareness of what Mother Nature has done inthe past, so we can hopefully prepare for future potential events.
Clearly someone who publicly "wishes" for these types events and harm to people is trying to cause sensational publicity for themself, but I cant see any difference between the "style" of talk you describe and other shock jocks such as Howard Stern. It seems the only difference is the subject matter and who is offended. Why not also go after tele-Evangelists?