Garbage in - Garbage out.

There have been several hubs as of late talking about Glenn Beck, the popular if controversial host of The Glenn Beck Show on FOX News. Some have spoken highly of him as a champion of populism, while others have told about his many flaws as a person who seems to be reporting news. I am mostly amongst the latter group, in that I believe that Glenn Beck often gets things horribly wrong, and that it seems to me that he is more interested in ratings and making a big splash than in getting the facts straight.

Let me start by defining what is a fact in my eyes. A fact is a truth. It is something that has happened that can be substantiated by either witnesses or some outcome. A fact is not an opinion and a fact must have credible evidence which backs it up.

With this in mind I have seen some incredible things done by Glenn Beck which, in my humble opinion, skirt the issue and substance of the difference between fact and fiction. What Glenn Beck seems to do on his TV show is raise some issue, expound upon it at length, building a case that is based upon solely circumstantial evidence which is seldom corroborated by independent and factual sources, and then give us, the viewer, his opinion as to why we should believe him, act upon this "news" and then get angry about it.

In a sense, Beck is a great and powerful storyteller, but is what he does news, in the sense of a traditional news program? I think not.

In short, Beck seems to me to be giving his opinion as if that alone makes it factual. I remember the case he wanted to make about alleged FEMA camps and how some Americans would be transferred there because they somehow didn't fit into Barack Obama's "agenda" or plans. He offered no verifiable proof, no credible evidence, and even though he did later that day say it turned out to be an untrue story, the damage was done.

In little or no time a large number of false reports that others had posted on blogs or websites, using Beck as a source, and interestingly none of which made reference to Beck's own disclaimer, turned out to be spreading fast and furious around the blogosphere.  Many of these were in turn picked up by various anti-Obama hosts and bloggers and proclaimed as being true.  In a word, these sources began feeding off each other and in a circular way formed what seemed to be an "independent" basis for the story.  The lie that was the death camp story made it into the rest of the media, and for wekks and in some cases much longer that this, circulated as being a true story, thwarted by vigilent watchers of Glenn Beck.

But were these sources independent of each other, or were they merely feeding off each other, each one using the past as "proof" that this story was real?  It seems the latter is sadly true. In a way it appears to be very similar to the old game we used to play at school, one person would start telling a story to another, who then in turn told another, and so forth., By the time the last person was told the story, it had changed, grown more dramtic, and was not even close to the first telling. These, it seems to me, are the "sources" Mr. Beck uses to back up his ideas.

Folks, this is not how news is supposed to work. This entire exercise is merely opinion posing as news, and in some quarters this rates solely as propaganda. In the movie "V" there is a host who talks smoothly and "reports" all sorts of ridiculous allegations and then uses his own credibility, personality and charm to make lies into truth. One has to wonder just what Glenn Beck is trying, really and behind the outward motives, to do here? Granted, I am one of those who tends not to believe most of what he says, so my opinion is biased. However, apart from my opinion, there are the realities of what journalism and television news are supposed to do in order to make sure the stories they report are based upon fact, not political or personal agendas, and especially upon rumors. Rumors, as we have heard often enough, can turn violent. Falsehoods can lead to tragedy, as we saw in the case of David Koresh creating fear and paranoia amongst his folowers which eventually lead to the showdown at Waco in which he and many of his followers died. In other words, rumors and false information, when believed and acted upon, can lead to dire circumstances, even to the death of others.

So, just how does Glenn Beck get away with this? I often wonder just why no one has taken him to court and sued him for the alleged libel and apparent outright lies told by him. Apparently. so do his followers, whi use this inaction as "proof" that Beck speaks the truth. But is lack of legal action actually proof that someone is telling the truth? I don't believe it is.

Honestly, I have no idea why he hasn't been sued by those he has defamed in word and by implication on his show. (I also have no idea why more people didn't sue the tabloids.) Perhaps he is just simply a very good charlatan, a real populist charmer, a boyish-looking kid-next-door or a very eager salesman who knows how to frame his words so that they always have the element of being merely opinion, and therefore not to be confused with fact. He does, after all, claim that he is not a journalist and his program is not your typical news program.

As for covering one's arse, I do this myself, to protect my arse when I write. For example, I say "alleged" or "in my opinion" to protect myself from being assaulted legally by anyone I write about. This is not a secret tactic and many people use it. So, for example, when Beck claims President Obama was putting the strong arm on Ben Nelson, he said more or less IF this is true then it is treasonous.

Just the same, I would bet a dollar to a dougnut that what most people took away from that long talk was that "This is treasonous!", and then associated Obama with an act of treason. These kinds of tactics were used by the North Koreans on our soldiers back in the 1950's to get them confused so they would believe, wholeheartedly, the most astounding lies. Some of those poor men came away actually believing that they had committed acts of brutality against the women and children of North Korea. In short, they were what was called at the time, brain-washed. They heard and came to believe many false ideas and were certain these falsehoods were indeed true. The story of Patty Hearst also shows the power of this kind of suggestive reasoning.

But one does not need to be a North Korean interrogator to understand that a lie told often enough becomes the truth in the minds of the masses. These kinds of tactics have been used right here, such as when Joseph McCarthy claimed that so many Americans were secretly Communists that we were all in danger of being taken over by some nebulous Red Wave. Of course, there had to be some small element of truth in such a sweeping statement, and some Americans were indeed Communists or sympathized with some ideas they had about what Communism was. In many cases these Americans had themselves been slowly subjected to brain washing, and in other cases they simply believed that Communism was better than what we had here. But that is not the main point.

What McCarthy did was take a simple fact, that a few Americans were indeed Communists, and blew it up into a huge monster which people believed to be true. After all, if it was true for a few, could it not be true for many? In other words, McCarthy sewed doubt into our minds and we took the next step in making this into a huge conspiracy of immense and immediately disastrous proportions. Never mind that the FBI already knew who this small group of Communists were, never mind that they represented very little threat to any of us, McCarthy made the issue a prime mover and of great importance simply by repeating it over and over, every time making bolder and more incredible claims, at one time actually having ripped pages out of a Wisconsin phone book and brandishing it as a "list of known Communists" we should all be afraid of.

No one bothered to check out the veracity of these claims; we all just assumed that McCarthy, as a Senator and leader in this anti-Communist struggle, was telling the truth when in fact he was just whipping up popular support that would assure him of both power in the Senate and re-election in Wisconsin. Some of the people who knew him well even said he had higher ambitions for the White House.

Again, sadly, Mr. Beck seems to be going one farther than old Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy in that he often does not even have a shread of actual evidence about the things he says. For example, when talking of his protest a few months back, he was claiming on FOX that 1.7 million people were in Washington, D. C. specifically for that march. While it may or may not be true, this was presented by Beck as a fact, as if some idependent agency had tallied the number of people there and had somehow come up with the number 1.7 million. If that were indeed fact, perhaps Washington D. C. officials must have had some clue that 1.7 million protesters did indeed arrive on that weekend and would have had to have extra police and ambulance personnel on the scene. Maybe they did, but Beck never mentioned this as proof or evidence for his claim. After all, 1.7 million people in Washington D. C. would have just about doubled the population of the city at that time. "According to census.gov, the 2008 ACS population estimate for the Washington DC is 591,833." (source: Wikipedia).  According to the group which keeps an eye on these things, the number of tourists in 2008 was roughly 16.6 million, which tallies to about 1.4 million per month. this number dipped slightly for most of 2009, but numbers have not yet been released. (Source: Washington D,C, Travel & Tourism Industry stats, 2006).  Certainly 1.7 million showing up on a Saturday would have aroused some attention of the local authorities.  To date, however, no such number has been verified.

Do the math.  Certainly there would have been some positive, noted economic benefit to 1.7 million people arriving in the capital on that weekend.  Again, the numbers do not reflect this. Perhaps the food vendors tallies would show great business during that time. Maybe these things could indeed be shown as factual, but Beck was on the air during the event and simply said that 1.7 million had shown up, and it was taken as fact.  And even today there is no actual source to show he was correct.  None.

Why do we believe this man?

We Americans are generally not stupid and we certainly are nobody's fool. Yet we give our trust so willingly to those we believe are on our side in some issue or another. But why should we trust Glenn Beck, or anyone else for that matter, Right or Left, so blindly?  Well, part of the problem, as I see it, is that we have come to think of the Internet as a source of facts and knowledge.  It is not.  The Right has lambasted Wikipedia as a source of false information, yet many readily believe the multitude of bloggers spewing out equally unsupported information.  The Internet is, however, the realm of opinion, and as everyone knows, opinions are neither fact nor always true. Those who believe the Earth is flat are amusing, their web sites colorful and interesting to read, but do they speak the truth?  I seriously doubt it.  Do we blindly, willingly take their word for it, though, because they have a web site and claim to be speaking the truth, or do we research a bit more seriously into the matter?  Unfortunately, some people do not and come to believe in fantastic but false ideas. That also is very sad.  In this rough, rough old world we live in, believing in lies can get us into real trouble.  Just look to our adventure in Iraq.  We believed the lies, and the lies eventually were shown to be just that; lies.  How many soldiers have died fighting for a lie?  How many more will die because of that lie?

Among many on the political Right certain celebrities have often been criticized for giving opinions about things political, and there is even a contingent of Conservatives who mock the "egghead" "elite" "intellectuals" who hold some office or cabinet post or czar position. The people who mock them are, of course, pointing out the differences between us and them, the common folk and the bright boys who hold some advanced degree, basically saying that if one is an "elite" then he or she has no idea how to live as a common person. And then the same people, many of them, hold up Glenn Beck as some sort of ideal common person. Well, he is acting a lot like one of those bright boys his fans seem to mock, and he certainly is not living like a common folk because he is wealthier than most of us will ever be. And as far as his show goes, it is his moneymaker, his bread winner, and he depends upon the ratings to drive up his popularity, and his popularity to drive up his income. There is nothing wrong with this.  All TV shows want ratings and all characters on the shows want high incomes. That is life in the entertainment field.

The problem for me is that Glenn Beck actually fits the definition of an entertainer, and therefore would and should be included in that list of "Hollywood elites" people on the Right so willingly scourge. He is wealthy, he offers his opinions on political matters, and he has his own forum for entertaining us. And believe me, I am entertained by him every time I watch his show. However, as with a sit com, I know the difference between entertainment and reality.  Beck is a master at clouding the difference, and he has a totally free-style forum, with no dissent, to say what he wants, decalre what he wants and cause all the commotion he desires with his loyal audience. 

Actually, my original intention here was not to "pick on" anyone, not even Glenn Beck. He is a first class entertainer, with all his dramtics and emotions. I really do enjoy watching him perform,. But I know when I watch him that it is merely a performance. I rarely take anything he says very seriously. And when he claims this or that is happening, I start to make notes and check out the veracity of what he says. Like most performers, be they Liberal, Conservative or otherwise, I take much of what he says with a grain of proverbial salt until I can check out his sources, their credibility, and then make cross-checks with other sources.

So, that said, my original intent was to examine the facts behind Glenn Beck, and now I will say that he is not the only one out there with dubious credentials. Look around at any cable news channel. especially FOX and MSNBC, and you'll see that some of the hosts are very political, very biased either Right or Left, and that in order to take seriously what they say, one needs to do a bit of background check on their stories, and then apply what I call the "bias factor" to their reporting. Many people claim that the "media" is Liberal-biased, but looking at folks like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly and all so many others, that seems to me to be a bit of a bad joke. The media is biased on both sides of this Liberal-Conservative divide.

Believe whomsoever you want to, but be ready to have to defend your beliefs against facts that may not agree in any great detail with your beliefs. And remember, with entertainers taking the roles meant for serious journalists, what you get may garbage in and garbage out. That's just how it is these days.

Cheers!

Chef Jeff