Exposing Glenn Beck as a Dangerous Fraud - Bob Cesca/HuffPo

Exposing Glenn Beck as a Dangerous Fraud
Bob Cesca
Political Writer, Blogger, and New Media Producer
Posted: April 7, 2010 02:48 PM

<snip>

So here goes. Beginning with this post, I intend to expose Glenn Beck as a fraud. A dangerous faker who deliberately manipulates his audience by appealing to their basest instincts. As a man who only embraces conservatism and the tea party movement as a means to furthering his significant personal wealth and career as a successful TV goon.

My theory is as follows. Glenn Beck is engaged in a carefully orchestrated performance that, if taken to its logical end, can only end up in tragedy -- a tragedy, not in the name of some great political or social or religious cause, as too many of his viewers might believe, but rather in the name of pure careerism and greed. A tragedy in the name of Glenn Beck's personal drive for fame and fortune, not to mention the similar motivations of Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch.

Right. I get it. I should probably ignore him. Why should I waste time writing about Glenn Beck again? As hard as it is to believe, most days I intentionally ignore Glenn Beck posts and videos on the blogs. My reoccurring reaction is generally twofold. One: he's exhausting to watch because just as I'm wrapping my head around one line of googly-eyed horseshit, he belts out another ridiculous, melodramatic or dangerous line, and before I know it, I'm faced with a log-jam of crazy, forcing me to scramble for either an oxygen mask or a stiff drink. And, two: why pay attention to the television equivalent of an escaped mental patient screaming gibberish on the median strip at a busy intersection?

But to underestimate Glenn Beck as just some sort of random extra from Cuckoo's Nest, as I admittedly have done, is a mistake as it barely scratches the surface of what his scam is all about. A schizoid raving street loon tends to command attention purely for the freak show curiosity of passers by, yet the nonsense is rarely taken seriously.

This isn't the case with Glenn Beck. Several million people every day take his word for it. They're suckered into buying the ruse. And it's bad for America.

What his regular viewers haven't grasped yet is that he's putting on a show. He's playing a role. He's tricking his audience. Unlike a left-leaning audience, Beck's audience is mostly composed of white conservative Christians who pride themselves on taking certain things on faith, and who often act against their own financial interests for the sake of patriotic cheerleading. It's an audience that embraces gun ownership and tends to be more reactionary and militaristic. (Incidentally, there's no equivalent to this on the "other side" simply because it's not in the nature of liberals to be, you know, conservative.)

But it's hard to blame Beck's audience for being fished in. There's no wink and nod, so he's clearly not attempting some sort of obviously satirical character like Stephen Colbert or even a more bizarre character like Andy Kaufman's Tony Clifton. He performs this role as seamlessly as any decent character actor, but he never tips his hand (we're generally told when an actor is acting). Just an occasional mention of himself as a "rodeo clown." There's no crawl at the end listing "Glenn Beck as 'Glenn Beck.'" It's not a fiction program.

Glenn Beck is playing a character with a personality and a style that is laser focused at the souls of an intended audience. It doesn't take many minutes of viewing his television show to see that he's mashing up the most effective and successful aspects of Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones and '60s Bircher author Cleon Skousen, and filtering it all through the performance techniques of a televangelist. Listen to any random monologue by Glenn Beck and then watch some clips of televangelist Jack Van Impe. Both are master manipulators and (crazy aside) riveting speakers. They each nail their audiences with rapid-fire barrages of nonsense presented as dramatic fact -- so twisted and obscured that it begins to seem real and anything that might not seem entirely plausible, just have faith. After all, there are complicated drawings on a blackboard! Oh, and he cries. So he must be serious. (We learned last year that the crying is fake.)

<snip>

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/exposing-glenn-beck-as-a_b_528966.html?view=print

Go Bob!!!

:bounce::woohoo::bounce:

:kick:

Yet at the end of his life, Atwater realized that treating politics like a wrestling match was a mistake. In politics, unlike wrestling, the societal damage is real. The lives are real.


If a person begins to see discussing social issues as just a game, they leave any thought of the effects their actions have. Many people argue points to win the argument, with no regard of truth or effect, such a thing might have. They argue for a win, in a very small world void of consequences in their mind.

We used to have debates in school, each side would take a position and make the best argument. The ideas behind the argument were not the point, it was about building skills in being able to think and discuss. Many people feel politics is like that. They are only presenting a point of view, they do not feel they are responsible for the effects of spreading that point of view. In law, or debate, you can walk down each arguement to find which is correct, in entertainment TV, they do not, so it is not right to use that technique because it does not illuminate the arguement and reason, but just leaves a false claim in the minds of the viewer

One of the most common techniques is the disingenuous argument. Someone brings up a valid point on TV, a talking point is then put up that is known to be wrong, but requires hours to walk down the argument to disprove it. In one phrase it sounds viable, but it can be shown wrong. And there are thousands of disingenuous arguments like that where fake arguments can obscure an issue by knowing most people do not have the time to walk to the end of every discussion. In my view, the person knowing an argument is wrong, and still using it, is a wrong person, doing wrong to society.

Skills in communicating an idea, just like skills in motivating and advocating for issues, have to have a moral grounding that takes into account the effect such comments will have on society.

A million years ago I taught 8th Grade. I used to do a section on debate, and I'd have them debate both sides over a couple of days. One side one day, the other side another day.

I thought this might be a good strategy, because you ought to know the valid points of you opponent. And... I used to tell them... that if a subject is controversial, it is usually because BOTH sides have a legitimate point.

Not sure what the hell is going on these days...

:evilgrin:

:hi:

BTW - Great Film on this -> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427309/

Based on true story, and one kids should see. Adults too!

:shrug:

I don't get why this hasn't got much traction, either. Bob's work is excellent and I hope he continues with this series.

:kick:

:kick:

blamed his Faux Propaganda Network viewing for his problems.