var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

takes_so_little

August 12, 2009 2:08 PM

Moderate | Flag for review

Beck has the right to say whatever he wants, he just doesn't have a right to get paid to say it. Please don't try to make this a 1st amendment thing, it ain't.

That being said, I say this helps Beck in the long run. These people (shock jocks, cable news, etc) usually benefit from getting the most free press they possibly can without getting fired. And even then sometimes they come out ahead. Anyone catch the $ amount on Opie and Anthony's latest contract?

13 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

August 13, 2009 5:19 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@takes_so_little: How much was their latest contract for?

Not to nitpick, but ever since Sirius neutered them, they're not really \"Shock Jocks\".

$\"user-pic\"$

takes_so_little

August 15, 2009 11:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RedwoodFlyer: They're employed, and they're multimillionaires. HOW did their negative pub hurt them again?

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 7:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@takes_so_little: Yeah it worked for Don Imus. Wait.....

$\"user-pic\"$

takes_so_little

August 12, 2009 10:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Project_J187: \"...usually benefit from getting the most free press they possibly can without getting fired.\"

If only I had put something about that in my original comment. Wait...

$\"user-pic\"$

sbcpunkrocker

August 12, 2009 4:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@takes_so_little: Of course there is no 1st Amendment issue. Your rights are not implicated unless there is action by the government. Fox can say what they want, we can say what we want, it only becomes a problem when the government does something, e.g. try to stop the speech, fine us, etc.

$\"user-pic\"$

The Porkchop Express

August 12, 2009 6:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@sbcpunkrocker: Thank you. Beck has the right to say whatever his stupid little heart disires (i'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't know them) and Fox and it's advertisers have the right to pay him to say these things.

it is only a 1st amendment issue if the goverment doesn't allow him to say these things.

$\"user-pic\"$

BeFrugalNotCheap

August 12, 2009 8:04 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@The Porkchop Express:
\"..has the right to say whatever his stupid little heart desires\".
Well, at least he has a heart.

$\"user-pic\"$

Persistence - Long viv revolisyon an konsomatè yo!

August 12, 2009 4:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@takes_so_little: Beck has the right to say what he pleases. However, what disgusts me is that Fox doesn't have to disclaim that it is not news, and may have no basis in fact.

$\"user-pic\"$

ktetch

August 18, 2009 9:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Persistence: yeah, too true. That US news is not required to have a basis in fact is disturbing.

Free Speech is one thing, but I can't just go around and say a lot of things. There are restrictions on describing yourself as a member of certain professions when it is inaccurate, and the same should be applied to journalism, and 'news'.

Of course, sending your representative/senators a letter saying you want a strengthening of the rules requiring news to be factually based, and see what response you get.

$\"user-pic\"$

edebaby

August 12, 2009 3:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@takes_so_little: You are spot-on; it's already working vis-a-vis this post on Consumerist.

$\"user-pic\"$

TVarmy

August 12, 2009 3:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@takes_so_little: Exactly! There are a ton of extremely bigoted people online (ie Fred Phelps), but as nobody but their followers want to sponsor them, they pay for their own publishing (flyers, protests, bandwidth).

Glen Beck's show is a product. The advertisers pay for the distribution of that product. They've determined it's wrong, either fiscally or morally, to support that product, so they moved their ads. It's like saying the fact that New Coke failed is a case of ignorant people keeping Coca Cola from freely distributing their new formula.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@takes_so_little: oh, he'll still get paid. If you actually watch that lunatic then I can't imagine what he'd have to say to make you stop. The same number of people will be watching and when people forget about this they'll be back, or other advertisers will just take the slots. Nothing he says really matters anyhow, so who cares?

$\"user-pic\"$

diasdiem

August 12, 2009 2:47 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Megalomania: I don't watch him. The only time I watch is when there's a news item about something outrageously crazy he said, and then it's a video clip with no commercials.

$\"user-pic\"$

takes_so_little

August 12, 2009 2:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Megalomania: I don't watch. The only time I notice these people is when they successfully get free press for being 'outrageous.' I kind of shake my head at the protest tactics, as they usually only help the shock jock they're trying to defame.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

chris_l

August 12, 2009 2:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Pretty disingenuous thing to do, since chances are they aren't watching Fox News in the first place. It's like the PTC complaining about Janet Jackson, giving the FCC the false perception that America is upset as opposed to a bunch of big mouthed pushy assholes.

I hate the channel and don't watch it. Unfortunately, the Nielsen ratings system is totally fucked, so advertisers don't quite understand how it is a bad idea to advertise to an admittedly large niche of brain dead sociopaths.

9 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 5:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chris_l: If I am a loyal customer of Acme Soap, and I find out that Acme is a heavy PETA sponsor, in your estimation it is wrong for me to stop buying Acme Soap unless I am also a PETA member.

$\"user-pic\"$

Persistence - Long viv revolisyon an konsomatè yo!

August 12, 2009 4:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chris_l: Huzzah!

$\"user-pic\"$

Cant_stop_the_rock

August 12, 2009 3:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Complaining to Fox News if they don't actually watch the channel was unnecessary, but I don't think there's anything wrong with complaining to the advertisers who are paying for that content to be broadcast. They probably do use P&G products.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 4:51 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Cant_stop_the_rock: Telling a business you won't support it's products if it supports a racist = OK, but complaining to the channel hosts an loudmouth racist is not OK? Explain what you mean by unnecessary? That just because they don't watch the show it's selfish and inconsiderate to complain about his unrepentant racism that's broadcast primetime? Whether you watch the show or not, everyone can be offended by this loser's remarks. Fox may not care that someone not in their target demographic is offended, but that makes it \"ineffective\" at worst, definitely not \"unnecessary.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chris_l: You mean like on MSNBC? Or is it just for idiots when they disagree with you? Either way Beck, with the ok of his bosses by not firing him, has the right to his opinions and the advertisers do as well. The bloggers that wrote and called into the advertisers were successful and they had every right to do what they did and the advertisers moving the ads out of his show had every right to do so.

I wonder when people got the idea in their head that it was their constitutional right not to be offended and not to have to listen or see anything they disagree with. We used to say that I may disagree with you but I will fight till the death so you can say it. Not its I may not disagree with you and I am going to cry like a baby about it.

$\"user-pic\"$

Baccus83

August 12, 2009 3:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Red_Monkey: Don't make assumptions. He said nothing about MSNBC in his post.

People have free speech. Guaranteed. However they also, presumably, have common sense. Calling somebody a racist crosses a line. He has every right to say it, but he should expect to be called out on it.

Use some discretion, Mr. Beck. You don't want to get sued for libel.

$\"user-pic\"$

BWoodle

August 12, 2009 3:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Red_Monkey: I wonder when people got the idea in their head that it was their constitutional right not to be offended and not to have to listen or see anything they disagree with.

I think you are making up imaginary people to disagree with. I, for one, haven't seen anyone claim this as a constitutional right.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:08 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chris_l: Wow, I couldn't have said it better myself. Right on!

$\"user-pic\"$

spanky

August 12, 2009 3:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chris_l: There's a pretty significant difference, in that the PTC's campaigns consist of complaining to the FCC, which then levies fines against the networks, and the complaint forms ask you the time and call letters of the station you were watching when you were offended. The vast majority of the complaints they get are outright lies, as the 'viewers' saw the excerpts online, if at all.

With advertiser boycotts, nobody is necessarily saying that they saw the offending material broadcast, and they're contacting advertisers saying they won't support a business that supports that offensive material. There's nothing disingenuous about boycotting businesses based on offenses you didn't personally witness. It's a reasonable response, and it doesn't require misrepresentation.

If the PTC and the AFA were doing that, it'd be fair game too. But they're not. They're lying.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

I Love New Jersey

August 12, 2009 2:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Nothing like racists calling racists racist.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 8:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@I Love New Jersey: I know I won't get an answer from your trolling behind, but you sort of need proof to establish that the black bloggers group is racist.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 10:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@BlazerUnit is now a part of UppityDragon Wireless:

I'll play devil's advocate and assume that he'd say that because they are an alliance of black people and only black people, with the interest of furthering only black agenda, they are therefore racist.
I don't agree, but I'm sure that this is the rationale behind it. That or... who the fuck knows

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 5:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@I Love New Jersey: Wait... I think there may be a big whoosh of a joke going over my head, but are you implying that Obama is a racist, as in Beck (racist) calling Obama (racist?) a racist? I'm confused.

$\"user-pic\"$

kagekiri

August 12, 2009 6:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@tonalanswer: I read it as \"racists (black bloggers alliance) calling racists (Glenn Beck) racist (Glenn for calling Barack racist).\"

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 7:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@kagekiri: because that word is used too much.

$\"user-pic\"$

edebaby

August 12, 2009 3:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@I Love New Jersey: Gotta love it.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

To my way of thinking, this isn't any different than when the Dixie Chicks criticized GWB and got dumped by numerous country music radio stations. They and Glenn Beck have the right to say whatever they want. But they have to take the consequences of those words as well.

The First Amendment only protects speech from the government. It doesn't protect you from angry citizens or advertisers trying to protect their bottom line.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:11 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Not exactly on topic, but why is OK that there is \"Black entertainment Network\", \"Black Enterprise\" magazine, and \"National Association of Black Engineers\", but even float the idea that you want to call your magazine \"White people monthly\" or your new TV station \"White television\" and suddenly you're a racist?

This has just always bugged me.

57 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

August 25, 2009 1:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: If a racist is someone who always looks at things through the eyes of race who are the real racists, black or whites? They are the ones who want to segregate with \"black everything\". I wish they understood that white people really do like black people. It is so frustrating watching them try to get even with the white man. The fact is we can never take back slavery or make it up to them. It happened. The only thing that can make it up to them is if they exercise power over us. I see it when I wait tables. Black people gloat in running you for one thing after another constantly, while the white people are just happy your got their food right. (and please don't tell me that is not all black people, or all white people it think we all know this already. But just try waiting tables in a northern state, you'll see.)

In England the Black people seem to act just like everyone else if you want to call that \"white\". It is like there is no difference between them, no cultural barrier like what we are seeing here.

The fact is they don't like whites, they don't want integration, they want dominion.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 13, 2009 5:23 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: For the same reason that it was ok for Nas to put out a song called \"Eat Dat Watermelon,\" but if a white person did it, they would be crucified..

$\"user-pic\"$

armchair.critic

August 13, 2009 1:21 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: and everyone in between...

I've never commented before and needed to register to say that initially I was scared to read the comments on this post but despite the occasional snark amongst commenters, this discussion on race has been relatively polite and I appreciate the bulk of critical thinkers on this blog.

One thing I will say about networks, at least I can appreciate ABC for having two hit shows that feature a multi-ethnic cast. TNT, HBO and a few others come to mind.

As for BET, die 1000x over. It's amazing what's happened as I think of what they were when they started out and what they are now. None of my peers care for BET and I really wish someone would pull a \"Drop Squad\" on them.

That is all.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 10:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster:

That same wiki page would explain to you why this isn't a case of Godwin's law being invoked.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 9:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy, who wrote:

\"Not exactly on topic, but why is OK that there is \"Black entertainment Network\", \"Black Enterprise\" magazine, and \"National Association of Black Engineers\", but even float the idea that you want to call your magazine \"White people monthly\" or your new TV station \"White television\" and suddenly you're a racist? This has just always bugged me.\"
-------------

The simplest and most polite answer to your question is this: White people haven't actually needed any of the things you've talked about. Minority-themed media and minority-based civic groups such as the ones you've described weren't developed out of racism or racial separatism, but as responses to racism and racial separatism in terms of participation in mainstream institutions.

Being race conscious is NOT the same thing as being racist, and too many people lack the sophistication to know the difference.

$\"user-pic\"$

HIcycles

August 12, 2009 8:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: being a minority (Asian), I wholly agree with you. The race card has been overplayed as of late, and I'm tired of it.

It's gotten to the point where we have a Supreme Court Judge who was confirmed solely based on her gender and race.

$\"user-pic\"$

varro

August 12, 2009 7:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Being black in the U.S. is its own ethnic group based on similar experiences.

\"White\" means \"not black\", and thus is used to exclude, rather than define. Have a \"Polish-American News\" or a \"Jugo-Slav Club\" (where my friend got married), or a \"Alliance Francaise\" - that's fine.

When you get talking about \"White People\" as a monolithic group, you're talking about people with white sheets and swastika tattoos.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eryk

August 12, 2009 7:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@varro: With your logic, \"Black\" also means \"not white,\" and thus is used to exclude, not define.

Except, as pointed out by many above, Black groups allow whites to join. And rightfully so.

The fact that \"White\" inherently means \"to exclude\" to you, and that white people as a monolithic group = sheets, burning crosses, and Germany in the 1940's, (monolithic - great word, by the way), means you have now incorrectly lumped all/most white people into KKK savages. Its no wonder that we are where we are when people make those kind of statements.

Can \"white people\" at some point mean.....I don't know....white people? We can define the KKK as ignorant fucksticks who should off themselves as soon as possible. That's a definition I think even you can agree with.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 7:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@varro: That's complete bullshit and I reject it entirely. I am a white man. I do not identify myself as \"irish-american\" or \"british-american\" or anything else. I'm an American, without any of the silly sub-titles. My wife is Chinese, my best friend is Black, and my brother's fiancee is Chinese. You can go to hell if you lump me in with white supremacists and hate mongers.

$\"user-pic\"$

The Porkchop Express

August 12, 2009 6:51 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: disclaimer: I have not read any other comments replying to this I have, in fact not even clicked on the plus sign.

Every other channel, magazine, group of engineers, etc...is generally for white folk.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eryk

August 12, 2009 6:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: The only thing I'll add, is that a few censuses running around out there have pointed out that by the year 2022, caucasian people will likely be in the minority in many states, not certain how it will play out federally (not the easiest thing to predict).

As long as caucasians can then decide what is racist and what is not, and those who are in the majority don't have a say in the matter, I'm just fine with there being no \"White People's Club.\"

If not, then people are playing Animal Farm politics, and feel that all are equal, but some are more equal than others.

$\"user-pic\"$

octopede

August 12, 2009 4:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Thanks for that question, I think a lot of white people think this, and it's a valid one that needs to be answered. Allow me to try... It's about White Privilege, the notion that simply by being white, you're getting preferential treatment.

You probably don't see this happen, and when you look at black folks or brown folks I imagine you think: 'They're just like me. I've had hardships, and I've overcome them, but they're getting some special treatment by having their race called out.' Black and brown folks, however, see this happen in front of them on a daily basis. They see the way people treat them different, the way mall cops follow them around as they shop, the way people expect the worst of them. To be brown in a culture designed from the beginning on a white, European model, comes with some hurdles.

Like television and magazines and media, and how our American standards of beauty and 'correctness' have historically been lily white. Of course, white people don't notice this, but others certainly do. There are some black and brown models and spokespeople now, but anyone over the age of 25 remembers when finding positive and casual representations of people who look like you was rare, to say the least. When I was a kid, to see a black man as a spokesperson on a car commercial would seem to imply he stole the car. That mindset is still very prevalent, whether or not white people see it...but nonwhites will always see it.

Products and services specifically targeted to black and brown folks are there to salve that, in the same way that the one english-speaking bar in a somewhat hostile foreign land would be a salve to you or I; it's community.

In 100 years, there may not be a BET, because there will be plenty positive and casual representations of black people in culture - and no, although there are plenty of cool dark-skinned folks in media now, we are not there yet, not close. In fact, it won't be until the concept of 'race' becomes antiquated (people will always have their ethnicity and heritage, but 'race' is an artificial idea invented by Europeans) that we can be done with these divisions.

But people of African, or Polish, or Irish, or Southern American, or whatever descent will always be drawn to people who share their experiences, and there will be stores and magazines and TV channels there to serve that. Sorry for the lengthy reply, I see you've gotten a lot of them. Thanks for stimulating a discussion.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 5:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

\"In fact, it won't be until the concept of 'race' becomes antiquated (people will always have their ethnicity and heritage, but 'race' is an artificial idea invented by Europeans) that we can be done with these divisions.\"

So does groups which use race in their names just perpetuate these divisions?

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

August 12, 2009 4:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: I'm going to guess that any magazine called \"White People Monthly\" would be a product of your friendly neighborhood Neo-Nazis and therefore racist.

But you knew that.

Incidentally, a group of students at Michigan Law started a White Law Students Association during the affirmative action lawsuit at UM Law. And then they held a bake sale where they discounted cookies for women and minorities but sold them at full price to white males. They made their point, but having been interviewed on the national news for making your point that way pretty much guarantees you're too toxic to hire and you're never getting laid again.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 9:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): I remember that. I was in school at the time, and if you ever want to make your head spin, ask white, liberal, pre-law college students what they think of affirmative action. Liberalism only goes so far.

Some of the feminist groups on campus would have bake sales where men paid $1 for cookies and women about 75 cents, or the pay equity gap. This also rubbed some people the wrong way

Speaking of school, this whole conversation reminds me of a motion from a coalition of student groups to develop classes on \"White Studies\". The school had recently formed a major in African American studies (in addition an older African Studies major). Interestingly, the coalition was mostly non-white student interest groups. The point was that the meaning of 'white' needed to be deconstructed and people should learn that perception of race sometimes has nothing to do with appearance. There's an interesting history of who's been considered 'white' in the U.S.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 4:08 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Historically speaking, majority-targeted groups have tended to be formed for the purpose of excluding the minority. Whereas minority-targeted groups have tended to be formed for the purpose of ensure that the minority is represented within the whole population.

Also, when exclusionary, the majority-targed groups tend to work to exclude all minorities or several at once. Whereas minority-targeted groups tend to work to advance their single minority.

Not every group targeted at a population segment falls into those general stereotypes, but most have. And like all stereotypes, they affect the perception people in general would have of any \"pro-white\" group.

And that's why you can't (at least today) have an NAAWP or a Ivory Vogue without raising a few eyebrows.

$\"user-pic\"$

Cylon12

August 12, 2009 4:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Y jst ndrstnd d y? Y jst dn't gt t! nythng blck ds s k. ny thng wht ds s rcst. Blck gthr n grps nd cll ch thr N*****. Tht's K! Y sy tht wrd t ld nd y r RCST!

$\"user-pic\"$

Daria: Wants a dollarmillionare

August 12, 2009 2:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Cylon12: You make me so sad.
@Radi0logy: There is nothing stopping white people from starting a WET. There is no law against it. If you really want a channel as crappy and horrible as BET be my guest and create it. I am tired of that argument.

I hate Glenn Beck but he does have the right to free speech just as these bloggers have the right to protest against him. Free speech doesn't mean you have a right to say whatever you want without dissent. Even if that dissent comes from one particular group. Free speech is not without consequences.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Cylon12: Thats just like I can make as many \"Yo Mama\" jokes on my sis, but my BIL would get eviscerated if he stepped on to that minefield.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Cylon12: Reclaiming a hateful word is one method subcultures use to exert some kind of control over a difficult circumstance. You'll see some similar things in the homosexual community.

There are complex sociological and psychological reasons why blacks use that word with each other. Your use of the of the word, however, can probably be explained a lot more succinctly. Dipshit.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 5:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@PunditGuy: So very well put.

$\"user-pic\"$

edebaby

August 12, 2009 3:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: What we've got here people, is a failure to assimilate.

$\"user-pic\"$

Baccus83

August 12, 2009 3:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: You CAN release a \"White People Monthly,\" but do you really think you're going to get the audience you want? Honestly think about it. The reason \"Black Entertainment Network\" and similar properties exist is because that demographic of people will buy them. They were started because Black people were marginalized and needed their own place to go for news and entertainment pertinent to them.

The very notion of a \"White People Monthly\" must first take into account that the very idea of \"White People\" or \"White Culture\" is false, which is not true for \"Black Culture.\" There are magazines and networks for Irish-Americans, Russian-Americans and others, but once you put \"white\" in the title... well I doubt you're going to get the kind of readership you're looking for.

$\"user-pic\"$

Pixelantes Anonymous

August 12, 2009 3:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: I thought that was what Fox is?

$\"user-pic\"$

Lundah

August 12, 2009 3:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Because no one's ever burned a cross in Glenn Beck's front yard, that's why.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 5:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Lundah: Maybe someone should.

$\"user-pic\"$

tmed

August 12, 2009 3:04 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Because there is no legitamate \"white\" culture except trying to maintain inequity in modern life, or worse, trying to restore it to previous levels.

In America, white people are the majority: they developed the culture , and a hallmark to the development of that culture was the repression of other races. The response to that was to band together as opposition / defiance. American culture is the culture of White people: even if traditionally \"Black\" cultural pieces are incorporated, it remains \"White\" culture.

Slowly \"White\" culture is becoming inclusive enough to become \"American\" culture.

Additionally, \"Black\" culture items are slowly being rendered immaterial by the same process.

\"White\" - as a cultural reference - is a falsehood - there is no \"White\" culture - \"White\" culture is so many small cultures. \"Black\" cluture is just as splintered, and now the ties that would bind black people together as a unified group are splitting - there are fewere and fewer \"Black\" issues. Those issues are separated by class / income / education regardless of skin color.

\"White Culture\" as a phrase is owned by separatists and supremicists. The culture they look to defend is based on skin color, not on shared experience.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 6:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@tmed: No legitimate \"white\" culture? Really? None at all? I'll have to tell my father that all those years he spent on the stage doing Shakespeare - and the time he spent teaching me about it - were a waste. It wasn't \"legit\".

It's one thing to make special allowances for a minority or persecuted audience. It's entirely another to tell me that - because of the colour of my skin - my own cultural heritage is somehow not valid.

You later claim that what you mean is that there's no umbrella \"white\" culture, but acknowledge that so-called black culture is similarly diverse. If their cultural heritage is valid, why isn't mine? Or are you just being a racist?

(In a similar vein: Ladies, if it would be sexist with the pronouns reversed, it's still sexist coming out of your mouth.)

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 8:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RandomZero:
I think racist goes beyond color and into culture. I used to work with a black guy from LA...He walked and talked as ghetto as you could imagine. He was also intelligent, a hard worker and a very nice person. He showed me emails from his Mom deriding him for trying to be \"white\" and how, by striving for a simple suburban picket-fence lifestyle, he was selling out everything that his ancestors had suffered thru. She usually demanded that he and his family move back to the LA ghetto he came from and stop trying to be something he wasn't. It was baffling.

I don't care if people are white, black, red, yellow, purple or green. There are either people who earn their way, whom I respect, and those who whine that the world is against them and use it as an excuse to give up, whom I don't.

FWIW, I am a woman with really short hair, jeans & t-shirt, no makeup and a pickup truck. If I had a dollar for every militant lesbian who accused me being homophobic because I am straight, I could probably buy a really nice pair of high heels.

There are many, many people in this world who simply have a problem with \"the others\". There are people like them, who are OK, and everyone else is \"the other\". It is always easier to blame those who you do not understand and cannot relate to for the unpleasant things in your life. It is just another way for people to refuse personal responsibility and accountability in their lives.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 8:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RandomZero: I can't speak for tmed, but consider this in regards to Black culture specifically. I don't know how familiar you are with the history of American slavery, so my apologies if any of this sounds too remedial.

The majority of black people came to this country as slaves. A significant aspect of American slavery (although not exclusive to it) is that slaves were involuntarily stripped of their cultures of origin - not allowed to speak their native languages, practice their religions, dress in their traditional manner, eat their traditional foods, and so forth.

Minimal records were kept about individual slaves, due to their status as chattel. Marriages, births, deaths, and so forth were not recorded in public records as they were for non-slaves. Sales may have been recorded, but individual names were often not attached to these records. Since most slaves were illiterate, they could not keep records themselves.

Lastly, slaves did not have the option of cultural self segregation that other immigrant groups had, because their lives were so directly controlled by other people. Swedish immigrants, for example, could choose to marry within the Swedish immigrant community (and during the 18th and 19th century, it wasn't uncommon for white cultural groups to self segregate culturally). Cultural self-segregation is one way immigrant groups keep their culture alive in the face of a dominant culture.

For all of these reasons, the descendants of slaves imported from Africa had no opportunity to be connected to their family's culture of origin. At the same time, they were not allowed to assimilate into the dominant American culture, because that dominant American culture was largely \"whites only\". The end result of this is that a unique \"Black American\" culture evolved.

White immigrant groups, on the other hand, had the opportunity to try to preserve their own culture. They also had the opportunity to assimilate into the dominant American culture, which has roots in specific European cultures.

This turned out to be way more long-winded than I had originally intended. So I'll shut up now.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 7:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RandomZero: I think what he means is that white culture is much more scattered into smaller segments. Just like Star Wars and Comic-Con has a primarily white people following, just like Shakespeare and the like does. Its much broader, at least by segment, whereas \"Black\" Culture tends to be more focused on either R&B or Rap in terms of music and Blacksploitation films like \"Barbershop\" and \"White Chicks.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

CarbonFiberFootprint

August 12, 2009 6:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@tmed: To paraphrase Jacque Fresco... \"There are no black problems, there are no Mexican problems, there are only HUMAN problems.\" The more we focus on politically contrived social division, opportunities for our entire species to advance evade us.

$\"user-pic\"$

kelz

August 12, 2009 2:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: ...because in the case of separate organizations or venues, it's a culture thing, not a race thing. It's the same reason why there's no problem having a St. Patrick's Day parade or Univision. Those things are targeted towards a particular culture. I know it's hard for people to understand, but Black isn't just race.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@kelz: So what you are saying is that White is a culture now and Black is a culture. So all white people listen to country music and drive trucks and all blacks listen to hip hop and drive donks. I get it. That may have been the most racist comment on here.

$\"user-pic\"$

thegirls

August 12, 2009 3:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Red_Monkey: More projecting! If you don't understand what kelz is saying, why call the comment racist? It was a reasonable insight. You're making this too easy for the rest of us.

$\"user-pic\"$

johnfrombrooklyn

August 12, 2009 2:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I think Axl Rose first mentioned this point 15 years ago. Some people are only capable of seeing issues in black and white. And some can see the grey. There's obvious reasons why a National Association for the Advancement of White People doesn't need to exist. But you'll probably never figure it out. @Radi0logy:

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@johnfrombrooklyn: And as expected, I have officially been called a racist for even bringing the topic up.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

August 12, 2009 3:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: I totally understand where you're coming from, and it's a question I've had as well. The best answer I've been able to come up with is that because there is so much history with racial conflict, and that there is so much history with the perception that any race except for Caucasian is inferior, that certain people feel they must play \"catch up\" in areas of opportunity, when the reality is that other races were never inferior, it was society painting them that way. And because we're all still living in a society that does such a thing, albeit to a lesser degree, some people make efforts to further their race in order to show, once and for all, \"we are not going to be defined as inferior anymore\" - which backfires when it comes to Caucasian people because society, historically, had already defined them as superior. To launch a \"White People Monthly\" or a \"White Entertainment network\" would be perceived as that race's assertion that society was correct all along, and that they are reasserting themselves as a superior race.

$\"user-pic\"$

thegirls

August 12, 2009 3:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Who called you a racist? Project much? The fact you brought it up displays more of a type of willful ignorance. I didn't equate that with racism.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: It's the National Society of Black Engineers...I was on their mailing list for a while for unknown reasons.

It's an insightful point, but I think a few people have pointed out that these groups and companies were created because there was a need that mainstream media and groups were NOT supporting: the advancement of black Americans. I think they'll fade as racism and self-imposed segregation (which all groups are guilty of) do...which is to say that there's a reason they're still around, and it's just as much the former as the latter.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 2:49 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Because 'white' is the default. But you knew that.

$\"user-pic\"$

thegirls

August 12, 2009 2:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: I've seen stupid chain emails spouting this so called \"insight\". BET was created because back in the day, MTV wouldn't even play any videos that of people of color. So BET was created as an outlet for them. Remember, MTV isn't even 30 years old. So this is a pretty recent happening in American racial history.

I can give you sound, rational reasons and details on every one of those groups in question, but really, who cares. It doesn't take a genius to really understand why. It just takes common sense!

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 6:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@thegirls: I was under the impression that Michael Jackson's \"Thriller\" video was one of their all time most requested...

$\"user-pic\"$

thegirls

August 12, 2009 6:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@jodark: BET was started in 1980. Thriller came out later, in 1982. Though it did pay Michael Jackson's pop music, you'd be hard pressed to find much in the way of any mainstream rap and R&B music videos on MTV. At least, back in the day.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 7:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@thegirls: Well, MTV still isn't real developed in any one kind of music even today. They never play the real good heavy metal that I like, but they never will, since they are pretty much a surface level music channel. Besides, I was under the impression that Rap and R&B didn't become more mainstream until at least RUN DMC and MC Hammer and that whole late 80's early 90's boom that occured while I was watching TMNT on Saturday mornings.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Here's where it's racist. You are specifically labeling your target audience as the majority, directly excluding the minorities. Exclusion of minorities = racism.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville:
rac⋅ism
/ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
Use racism in a Sentence
-noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

So tell me how a White Monthly magazine would be racist but a Black Monthly would not be?

$\"user-pic\"$

DollaValueLIFO

August 12, 2009 4:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Red_Monkey:

You're guilty of never having read Ebony or watched BET, have you? I would further assume you think that fraternaties, professional orgs. etc. are also unfair.

BET was founded because MTV wouldn't play videos by black artists. And in a cruel twist of fate, the first black artist they did play had issues with his skin color to the point that he (reportedly) bleached his skin to become \"more white\".

Just like Men's Health appeals to the men interested in male specific issues that aren't discussed in Shape or in Cosmo, Ebony is produced with a target audience in mind, one that was clearly underserved. It's capitalism baby.

$\"user-pic\"$

merist

August 12, 2009 4:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@DollaValueLIFO: Just to clarify, \"Men's Health.\" is a magazine created to make men feel inferior to other men. This results in them purchasing products (Sold in the magazine.) that will make them more \"Manly.\" Much like womens magazines are engineered to get women to feel inferior to other women, creating a market for \"Women's\" products.

It is just a marketing campaign against your wallet.

$\"user-pic\"$

diasdiem

August 12, 2009 2:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville: No. Exculsion/discrimination of ANYONE, majority or minority, based on race, = racism.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: It has more to do with them being a minority, and being all repressed and stuff till relatively recently.

It is also more of a culture thing. It would be disingenuous and expedient to believe that all americans have the same homogeneous culture, and that everyone - white, blacks, asians, mexians - share the same outlook to life, and have the same experiences. The truth is they dont. It's called diversity, and its a good thing.

The only reason \"White People Monthly\" would be considered racist, is because of the negative connotation it gets thanks to the history of racism and slavery in the country. And also the fact that since it is the predominant culture in this country, a lot of things are already geared towards white culture (Vogue, NBC as someone mentioned.)

I bet people would not immediately think of race if there was a \"Desi News Masala\" magazine or an \"ABCD TV\" geared towards Indians.

As for free speech: Everyone can voice their opinions, but they should draw a line between their honest opinions (\"i think he is a racist\") and a willfully spoken lie (\"death panels\").

$\"user-pic\"$

TCama

August 12, 2009 2:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: You want \"White people monthly\"? Read every other magazine not target toward a minority group. \"White television\"? Try every network not targeted toward a minority group.

$\"user-pic\"$

Saboth

August 12, 2009 4:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The point isn't whether we have comparable content, but why is it \"wrong\" to call a magazine/channel one thing, but not the other. You know a channel CALLED \"White Entertainment Network\" would be called racist, get hate mail, the government would step in, but no one has a problem with BET. I personally don't have a problem with any of it, just a curious observation about our society that one label is ok, but another is not.

$\"user-pic\"$

diasdiem

August 12, 2009 2:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: @TCama: No arguing that they're \"The White People\" channels. We just don't get to name a channel like that. But then again, White Entertainment Television? WET? Sounds like a Pay-Per-View porn channel. :-)

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@diasdiem: @HurtsSoGood: Because MSNBC is the hallmark for rational middle of the line programming?

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

August 12, 2009 2:51 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: On the flip side, I'm obviously not in the target demographic of all the \"black sitcoms\" on the CW and the shows are so targeted at black people to the exclusion of other races that I find it impossible to watch the shows. Do some black people think that if some TV shows are not targeted to them, it must only be for white people?

My problem with some of these sitcoms is that there's even a need for sitcoms which define racial and cultural issues such such exclusion of other races. Certainly Margaret Cho's mid-90s show about her upbringing in a Korean household may seem extremely targeted, but it was actually about an American teenager trying to reconcile the traditional upbringing her mother wants and the new culture she actually lives in and embraces. It wasn't about Koreans or white people or black people, it was about being different and used Cho's upbringing to illustrate that. It could have easily been an Indian conmedian doing the same. I'm just not seeing TV like that nowadays.

$\"user-pic\"$

Tambar

August 12, 2009 2:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Great question that I see a lot from people who've never been marginalized because of the color of their skin or some flesh between their legs; it's because those are areas where the marginalized people have been historically (and usually deliberately, by the majority) underrepresented. By coming together in that specifically identified way they provide a more efficient support to each other in their goal for eventual equality with those groups which have always had the majority.

$\"user-pic\"$

The Cynical Librarian

August 12, 2009 7:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Tambar:
Flesh between your legs made me uncomfortable.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Tambar: Well I'm definitely not saying that black people were never marginalized - However I was raised in the 80's and other than an occasional outstanding incident I really haven't seen any more racism from whites directed at blacks than blacks directed at whites, or any other ethnic combination. I'm really not sure why you indicate that they strive for \"eventual equality\"; If electing a black man as president doesn't imply that there is near parity between the races in this country then I don't know what would.

Coincidentally, I see you also get the whole \"man vs. woman\" thing going -- last I checked there are entertainment venues that openly target just men (Men's Health magazine, NFL/NBA/MLB, YMCA etc etc) that are not called sexist for their apparent exclusion of women. Just saying these are two completely different subjects, based on how people approach them.

I guess what I am saying is that by being exclusive themselves towards a single race, are they not just perpetuating the same cycle they fought against?

$\"user-pic\"$

The Porkchop Express

August 12, 2009 6:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: \"Coincidentally, I see you also get the whole \"man vs. woman\" thing going -- last I checked there are entertainment venues that openly target just men (Men's Health magazine, NFL/NBA/MLB, YMCA etc etc) that are not called sexist for their apparent exclusion of women. Just saying these are two completely different subjects, based on how people approach them\"

The YMCA is really no longer so much YM as it is everybody, also not so C anymore. I guess it's really just the A.

as for Mens Health, women have magazines of their own.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Here a thought for you: open your mind, sit down at a coffee shop with any reasonable black person, and ask them how being black has negatively impacted their lives. If you listen, I mean really LISTEN, to what they say, you'll probably learn a lot.

Yes, racism goes both way, but the head of Human Resources is more likely to be white. Any black woman born under similar circumstances as me would not have had the same opportunities I did, because people perceive us differently. It's not right, and it's not fair, but it is what it is.

If you really can't see that white people are still in a position of privilege in this country, you're a fool. I'm sure any black man would be happy to gives up BET and the NAACP if it meant he wouldn't get pulled over for DWB (driving while black) or the man behind the HR desk would judge him the same as he judges a white guy.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 3:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: So you missed all the racist tripe directed at Obama during the election? Do you really believe all those people just said \"damn, we lost, okay, we like black people now\"?

$\"user-pic\"$

thegirls

August 12, 2009 2:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The fact that our country elected a black man has a lot to do with the rise in militias and 3 fold increase in personal threats against Obama compared to other presidents.

You clearly have no idea what sexism or racism is. But then again, just because you claim to have never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Willful Ignorance what perpetuates and allows low grade racism to fester.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 6:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@thegirls: It has nothing to do with his skin color and much more to do with his borderline-totalitarian and collectivist policies and leanings.

Do a little more research before you make blanket assumptions and prejudicies about people you don't know much about.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 4:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@thegirls: You seem to have reading comprehension issues, so I'm going to avoid your obvious trolling, thx4playing.

$\"user-pic\"$

thegirls

August 12, 2009 4:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Your avoidance worked well! Thank you.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: we already have White Television it's called NBC.

And most black people I know never watch BET they have the worst programs.

Ironically I was told that they love to watch Friends because I quote \"white People are crazy\"

$\"user-pic\"$

TCama

August 12, 2009 2:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: Don't forget CBS, ABC, Fox, CW ... and that's just over-the-air!

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 5:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: Hey fox has actually tried.@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): I saw that as a brave step for them. IF you want to look at problems with affirmative action look across the pond at England they're having a horrible time with it.

$\"user-pic\"$

takes_so_little

August 12, 2009 2:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Black people spent decades trying to fit in, ironing their hair, burning their scalps with chemicals, learning to talk 'white,' and it didn't stop the lynching. Granted that was a long time ago, but you might try to understand why some black people would kind of be like, \"OK, screw white people, let's just do our own thing.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Just because it doesn't say it on the cover doesn't mean it isn't true. How many black models have been on the cover of Vogue?

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

August 12, 2009 2:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@valleyval: In the case of Vogue and other fashion magazines, there is a huge gap in how much cover space minorities are given, unless you're Alex Wek. It's not just black women, it's women of all minorities (unless you're a celebrity). Likewise, how often do you see a non-black person in the cover of Vibe? I note that one exception is Fergie, of the Black Eyed Peas - she's not black at all (she's of Mexican, Irish, Scottish and Native American descent), but her association with the urban music scene and her role as an artist with a group that is predominantly African American means she's on the cover of some magazines which cater more to African Americans.

$\"user-pic\"$

The Cynical Librarian

August 12, 2009 7:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: No matter what lineage she descends from; can we all just agree that she's terrible and should not be on the cover of any magazine?

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

August 12, 2009 7:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@gyroball: I think that's something we can all agree to, sure.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@valleyval: that isn't the point. If vouge was called ivory beauty you would have a point.

The only way racism will truly be dead is when people stop referring to it all together. When you fill out most gov't/school/scholarship forms/applications race is always listed as a field to be filled.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 4:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@★_red3001: I agree with college applications. I am completely against race in college admissions for the purpose of \"diversity.\"

That being said, as a flaming liberal I do support affirmative action-but it's time we moved beyond race and make class the basis for aa. I went to high school with blacks who were both wealthy and poor, and whites who wer both wealthy and poor. Doesn't really make sense that the poor blacks got a leg up on the poor whites (on college applications). Does it make sense that the rich blacks got a nudge over poorer whites because they were black. It needs to be class-based, not race based, period.

Either way, in about 30 years, when white people are a minority, race based Affirmative Action will be obsolete. By then it should be entirely class based, or it will be the modern day equivalent of Affirmative Action for white people.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 7:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@EinhornIsAMan!: This is the best idea I've ever heard for Affirmative Action. Your point is 100% valid, and how come I've never heard of this (or thought of this) before?

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 7:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@JennQPublic: As liberal as I may be, I do find the occasional gem in conservative commentators (Andrew Sullivan, David Brooks, Ross Douthat). Here is a very good op ed piece about this issue [www.nytimes.com]

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 2:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@★_red3001: So if we can't see it, it can't see us? Racism can be defeated just like the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast?

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:26 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@★_red3001: ALWAYS put your race as \"other\".. if there is a fill in, I write in \"Human\".

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: You know, that's a really thoughtful and insightful point. I've never heard the issue presented like that by any of the hundreds of millions of white people in America.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 6:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ekzachtly: Nice. Assuming he's white is a bit racist isn't it. He could very well be Asian or Indian. But then why should it matter what color his skin is. A spade is a spade, correct?

$\"user-pic\"$

Duke_Newcombe sez íViva la Revolucion de Chihuahua!

August 12, 2009 5:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ekzachtly: And a nice heart for you, Sir/Ma'am.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:26 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ekzachtly: And yet I still haven't heard a coherent, well thought out reason from anyone.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 11:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: You mean to tell me that when you were young you never asked your mother why there was a Mother's Day and a Father's Day but no Kids' Day? Think about it.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 11:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@trustsatan: Actually in China there is a kid's day. But I digress.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:11 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: i think your question has been answered already. they're there to differentiate from the everything else, which is white-centric. That's the motive.

you may be right: there may be nothing inherently racist or wrong with starting a \"white people monthly.\" But i would question the motives of anyone who thinks that white people aren't getting enough say or exposure in media/politics, whatever that they have to start one.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:11 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It may not affect Fox's bottom line, but it ultimately reflects poorly on the show that caused the reshuffling, especially if they can only draw lower-tier (i.e less principled) advertisers.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TurboWagon00: OK, so you said pretty much what I said. Oops. I thought you were agreeing with the idea that this wasn't affecting Fox's bottom line. My observation is that ads for upscale chain restaurants usually go for higher prices than ads for \"natural male enhancement.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TurboWagon00: I disagree. When the only advertisers remaining on the 5-7 PM block are the ones that usually run ads late at night because they're cheaper, and from the look of things, that's what is happening, sooner or later, somebody is going to notice that the 5-7 PM block is underperforming.

Either that, or ad time on Fox News must be uniformly cheap as hell, in which case you have to wonder what Fox's real purpose is, other than making money.

$\"user-pic\"$

BWoodle

August 12, 2009 3:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@HurtsSoGood: Either that, or ad time on Fox News must be uniformly cheap as hell, in which case you have to wonder what Fox's real purpose is, other than making money.

Hmmm, I wonder what that could be...

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TurboWagon00: So now all the ads during his show are for shamwows and snuggies?

$\"user-pic\"$

drjayphd

August 12, 2009 5:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@SynMonger: Infomercials as the only adverti--OH MY GOD FOX NEWS IS UNIVERSAL HD

","

$\"user-pic\"$

lymey

August 12, 2009 2:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I consider myself an independent with slight libertarian leanings. I don't watch Beck at all.

That being said. What is happening to consumerist. This is turning into a very obvious left wing blog. In the past few weeks there have been a number of articles calling people who lean to the right, \"wingnuts.\" And then this article.

Consumerist should really stay focused on consumer related topics and let politics be.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

August 12, 2009 2:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The way the post is phrased makes it sound as if the black bloggers (try saying that 10 times fast) were the ones who called Obama a racist. Of course you can figure out that it was apparently Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck can say whatever he wants, just like his opposers can say whatever they want. It's the entire basis of free speech. He doesn't have to get paid for it, but the fact that he is doesn't change the fact that he is allowed to say whatever he wants to.

And before it gets into a Fox News vs. CNN debate, Glenn Beck was on CNN before he landed on Fox News.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

TCama

August 12, 2009 2:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Cylon12: I didn't know \"black\" was a noun. It's right up there with calling someone \"a gay.'

$\"user-pic\"$

TCama

August 12, 2009 2:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: Whoops. That was supposed to go on another comment. Weird.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

rugman11

August 12, 2009 2:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is free speech at its finest, though it does seem disingenuous. It's not like this is the first time Beck has spoken along this vein. To act like your outraged now is a little strange.

7 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Duke_Newcombe sez íViva la Revolucion de Chihuahua!

August 12, 2009 6:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rugman11: It's not like this is the first time Beck has spoken along this vein. To act like your outraged now is a little strange.

Sometimes teh Stupid reaches a level where you HAVE to say something.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 2:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rugman11: Sorry, was there a statute of limitations on it? \"Oh, I'm sorry, you may not have noticed that Mr. Beck said this before, but he has, so STFU.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rugman11: Meh, that's just the talk show host's gig. They say whatever will inflame their listeners the most at that moment. It doesn't matter if it contradicts their previous stance. But keep it up, it sure does give us some funny video to watch on the Daily Show!

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@SynMonger: Haha that reminds me of the recent daily show episode, where Aasif Mandvi when asked for his opinion says:

\"Whatever scares white people the most. I just want to start a civil war.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 4:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: Hahahaha so good. I just watched that last night. Hysterical.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:47 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@SynMonger: My wife says Beck's days are numbered. I said to her that if he was on MSNBC, that might be true, but not on Fox. On Fox, he's just doing his job.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@HurtsSoGood: Exactly. There's a good reason that no MSNBC or CNN host has had to sternly warn his audience to not resort to violence to make points. Although sometimes I wonder if Olbermann shouldn't be having that conversation with himself...heh.

$\"user-pic\"$

takes_so_little

August 12, 2009 2:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rugman11: This has nothing to do with free speech, it has to do with selling commercials. He's free to say what he did and much much worse, he just doesn't have the right to draw a paycheck for it.

$\"user-pic\"$

rugman11

August 12, 2009 2:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@takes_so_little: That's exactly what I said. The only problem I have is with people who don't watch his show getting indignant NOW. It's not like he hasn't said these things before.

$\"user-pic\"$

takes_so_little

August 12, 2009 2:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rugman11: They are as free to be indignant as Beck is to be... whatever he is.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

zentex

August 12, 2009 2:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

uhmm...I think this is the one time I'm going to keep my mouth shut, even though I could roll out a dissertation on this subject.

The short, short, short version: These 'black bloggers' or whoever they are, are wrong.

10 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Eryk

August 12, 2009 7:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@zentex: Short version - you are wrong.

They have every right to fight what Beck said. Just like Beck had every right to state what he did.

Gestapo tactics to be sure were used to get the advertisers to back out, but so be it. Beck had it comin. If the advertisers decide to support Beck - fine. EVERYONE here, all parties involved, have the right to act like they will, and suffer the consequences of their actions, no matter how short sighted or downright stupid those actions are.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 13, 2009 12:26 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eryk: Yeah, the Gestapo were so well known for their peaceful letter writing campaigns...

$\"user-pic\"$

kc2idf

August 12, 2009 3:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@zentex: Not really, no.

Left-leaning radio/TV programming constantly deals with the hostility of commercial interests, part of which is brought on by conservative groups threatening to boycott the advertisers. For liberal groups to apply the same tactic to right-leaning radio/TV is fair play.

Now, whether or not they have become the enemy is another matter entirely.

$\"user-pic\"$

diasdiem

August 12, 2009 3:08 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@zentex: Yeah, I think you're going to want to elaborate on that statement. It's just rife with possible conclusions to jump to about you.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 2:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@zentex: Keeping your mouth shut would mean saying nothing, not saying something and pretending that mysterious forces require you to keep it short. But maybe you're trying to be unpersuasive?

$\"user-pic\"$

zentex

August 12, 2009 3:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: no, that was me writing a whole deal out then typing that first part, then erasing what I thought was all of it and hitting 'comment' too soon and cussing...then cussing even more because I just didn't hit the 'x' on the right and be done with it and continue to lurk this story.

I really wish there was an edit button we could use within 30 seconds of hitting submit. Call it the 'Oh shit!' button...it could even be a picture of golden poo.

so everyone can take my comment without the full backstory all they want, I don't care. enjoy it at my expense, I just prefer eggs on my plate.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Yup, because it's entirely inappropriate for someone to inform a company that they won't purchase its products because of the causes that company chooses to support. That's why I have no choice but to buy Hitler brand mayo and Klan Kleenex.

$\"user-pic\"$

diasdiem

August 12, 2009 3:51 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown: The only problem I have with Hitler brand foods is that they don't have any kosher products.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 6:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@diasdiem: I'm going to hell for laughing at that, aren't I?

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown: Sorry, I agree with you, but you just invoked Godwin's Law. Fail.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: When does invoking KKK godwin the discussion?

Also, he coul have called it Kool Klan Kleenex.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: He involed Hitler, too, with the mayo comment. And regardless of that, it's a total straw man argument...the Klan has never had any interest in producting Kleenex, etc.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 8:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: You Godwinnazis with your knee-jerk assumption that any and every mention of Hitler is by definition inappropriate are missing das boot. If you'd stop polishing your jackboots long enough to take a look around, you might notice that Beck excretes claims about Democrats being Socialists and Nazis all the time.

I know you don't excuse that, but Godwin's so-called law is not a natural one, and really isn't very useful.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 8:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@perruptor: \"The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses.\" --[en.wikipedia.org]

And um...what? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or if you misinterpreted my earlier comment to be in favor of Beck in some way. I assure you, it wasn't...

$\"user-pic\"$

August 13, 2009 2:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: You wrote \"Sorry, I agree with you, but you just invoked Godwin's Law. Fail.\" Mentioning Hitler does not \"invoke\" Godwin, it just demonstrates that there's some validity to the claim that Hitler will come up eventually. Your \"Fail\" remark is of a piece with the way Godwin is usually invoked (you did that here, not NeverLetMeDown) - as a way to dismiss someone's opinion. Think about this - if the discussion is about ideologues and authoritarians, bringing up Hitler is going to happen much sooner than if it's about quilting, and it's often entirely appropriate to bring up Hitler. NeverLetMeDown's comment made a point, and pretty well, too. It did not \"fail\" just because it had Hitler in it.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 13, 2009 8:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, sorry to drag this off topic. Actually, thinking about it, Mao Mayo has a better ring to it.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: *invoked...ugh, I can't type today.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: I know I know. I was just yanking your chain.

Also, not Kleenexes per say, but they were interesting in Kleansing. Or was it Hitler? I keep on forgetting what the KKK's MO was.

Bonus Question: Is it less bad to enslave someone or to kill them?

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: Phew, for a minute there, I was a little concerned that someone with less common sense and reading ability had hijacked your username...I've never known us to disagree!

LOL @ the Kleansing. Not, you know, racial cleansing, but your clever pun.

Gah, I hate Bonus Questions!

$\"user-pic\"$

takes_so_little

August 12, 2009 2:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@zentex: So, white guy voicing his opinion, great, but black people, not so much. Got it.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

nnj

August 12, 2009 2:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Everything is either racist left or right. We still have a long way to go children.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

diasdiem

August 12, 2009 3:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@nnj: There's always the solution from the movie \"Bulworth\" : \"Everyone should just f**k everyone until we're all the same color.\"

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I don't like what he says at all.

But you have every right to express yourself. And if Fox wants to pay this man then that's their business.

It's not like informed or intelligent people watch fox news anyway. I always thought fox was for watching lewd crazy cartoons and sitcoms like Married with Children.

8 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Fox News has lots of different shows, and some are better than others. I have no desire to watch, say, Bill O'Reily, but enjoy the OpinionJournal Editioral Report (which has a bunch of people from the Wall Street Journal).

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 3:04 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: And if the advertisers don't want to pay Fox because it hurts their sales to do so, that's THEIR business.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

August 12, 2009 2:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: Fox News is an entirely different arm of Fox, the entertainment company. Fox, the network, is also a different arm. Plenty of intelligent people watch Fox News. Tto paint all people with the same brush, akin to saying that all conservatives are abortion-protesting clinic-bombers, or that all people who watch CNN approve of gay marriage or voted for Obama.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

August 12, 2009 5:26 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: The Fox News demo is astoundingly old (\"Get of my lawn, kids!\" old), and more ill-informed (that's college-talk for \"stupid\") than even a topical comedy show, of all things.
So it's not painting with a broad brush, it's reflecting simple fact.
That's not to say that ALL Fox News viewers are intellectually sub-par, however. Cynical, greedy, short-sighted people of perfectly nominal intelligence might watch Fox News as well.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Hey I'm a conservative registered republican. That doesn't mean i want my news delivered to me by a network who pays hate speech ignorant people O'reilly and Glen Beck.

Sorry let me rephrase. Network News is filled with pandering, opinionated, fact devoid content that caters to the less educated and short attention span having populous.

I don't' like CNN any more either btw.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

August 12, 2009 3:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: But it's important to differentiate the network and the people watching it. I dislike Fox News and CNN, but that has more to do with the talking heads rather than the content. I prefer my news not come with chatty small talk and lame jokes, and it has nothing to do with political leaning or bias.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 5:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Ok then I can agree to that.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: What! The teabagging jokes on Anderson Cooper were absolutely hilarious -- for a 14 year old.

$\"user-pic\"$

drjayphd

August 12, 2009 6:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: Hey, if you walk into teabagging jokes by saying you'll teabag various people and places... without realizing what you're saying...

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: You are thinking of MSNBC, not CNN.

$\"user-pic\"$

takes_so_little

August 12, 2009 2:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: \"But you have every right to express yourself. And if Fox wants to pay this man then that's their business.\"

Well put.

And these protesters have every right to complain about what he says to whomever they choose.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@takes_so_little: the right to an assembly.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 4:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: The government is not stopping Glen Beck from saying what he wants, so what's your point?

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 4:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: did you read the comment?

\"What do you think, Consumerists? Is this an inspiring, power-to-the-people tale, a frightening display of free speech being crushed, or both?\"

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 5:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: Yes, I did. What does 'the right to an assembly' mean in this context? We're not talking about Glen Beck attemping to lead a Rally for the Oppressed White Man and having counter-protesters or cops beat him up.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 6:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: Talking about the group of bloggers.....

\"And these protesters have every right to complain about what he says to whomever they choose.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 13, 2009 3:53 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: Go back and re-read the First Amendment.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Segador

August 12, 2009 2:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

\"The way I see it, Beck has the right to say whatever he wants but so do his political enemies and advertisers.\"

I couldn't have said it better myself. I used to view Beck as one of the more level-headed, reasonable conservative talking heads, but in the past few years, he's gone a bit off the deep end.\"

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Segador: The funny thing is, the first time I watched his show, (a couple of years ago) on CNN, i actually liked it. He did make some sensible points in that particular episode.

I checked back a couple months later, and he had gone all sorts of nuts.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Segador:
The big difference here is that Beck spoke his mind to a wide group of seemingly like-minded people or to people he wanted to persuade to his point of view.

The bloggers wrote and exerted some level of pressure on Beck's employers/producers to either silence him or modify his message.

The bloggers used a defensive tactic to remove an opponent vs. using the public communications network to promote their perspective to the same large group of listeners that Beck appeals to.

This method, while legal, seems to be extortion instead of the exercise of free speech.

$\"user-pic\"$

Raanne

August 13, 2009 8:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Damocles57: Its called capitalism. organizing a boycott is exactly what those mysterious \"market forces\" are that are supposed to keep private organizations (like fox news) in check. And that is supposedly what this health care argument is all about right? if we should leave things up to the market to regulate, or government.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 9:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Damocles57: It's not extortion at all. You aren't entitled to a cable TV program or any such prominent platform, and therefore you are not entitled to advertisers to support your efforts. If your program has advertisers, any group that works hard enough can enthusiastically persuade them to spend their dollars elsewhere--which is precisely what Color of Change got GEICO to do.

Bill O'Reilly got Pepsi to terminate the endorsement contract with rapper Ludacris because he called for a viewer boycott. If that's not extortion, then what Color of Change did ain't extortion either.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Cylon12: I can't speak for him, but it feels fantastic. Then again, I always enjoyed thinking for myself. I might not always get it right, but it's a whole lot more freeing than being told what to think by fear-mongering jackasses. :)

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Segador: Maybe they changed his prescription?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The black bloggers are wrong in what they did. The PTC did this a few years ago to the WWE/F and lost a court case over it (actually I think they settled out of court).

But I do believe that Beck committed slander with his statements, which is ultimately what he should be in trouble for.

And you guys should really watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report. Beck is one of the guys they frequently smash/parody. He's a joke and completely out of his fucking mind.

8 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Cylon12

August 12, 2009 4:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

T bd y d nt gt t. Wht Bck sd s ttlly mmtrl. Th pnt s tht nythng tht wht sys tht blck dsn't lk, th blck clls t rcst.

Gt t nw?

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

August 12, 2009 2:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@JustinSane07: Daily Show and Colbert Report are entertainment. Yes, it's hilarious, yes, it can be informative, but bashing people and parodying people is their job. Glenn Beck makes it easier for them, but they also lampoon Obama a few times. Apparently that should make him a joke and out of his mind as well.

I agree that Glenn Beck can be inflammatory - but so can a ton of other people, and so can our dear president.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:29 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: When did Obama say inflammatory stuff? It is quite possible that he must have some time, I probably just missed it.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

August 12, 2009 3:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: His comment regarding the Cambridge police acting stupidly was pretty inflammatory for a lot of law enforcement individuals, as he had neither been there to witness the situation, nor had he spoken to anyone who knew more about the situation.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

August 12, 2009 5:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Yet he prefaced it with a \"From what I have heard in the case...\"
Obama also personally knew the man and that he wasn't the type to rip his shirt off and go on 'roid rages at the tip of a hat.
Let's face it - if a troop of police officers arrested a man in his home who ID'd himself (after luring him to step outside to make the public disorder charge \"public\"), and the victim was a White grumpy guy following some NRA, Operation Rescue or nutty tax protester script, there'd be no shortage of Republican pols mounting the ramparts to support him long before the facts were clear.
Recall the Terry Schiavo case, where the GOP lined up en masse to interfere with the normal carrying out of justice, even - gasp! - Bush having to return from vacation early. That wasn't an exception, but a rule of how they roll.
Compared to all of that, Obama's qualified statement seems tame and reasonable.

That said, lousy politics, since it derailed the health care reform message, as the nutters knew it would. Kept the proles distracted from things that matter for an added week - their win, our loss.

$\"user-pic\"$

DoctorMD

August 12, 2009 7:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: For a breaking and entering call the POLICE PROCEDURE is to empty a house of ALL occupants, clear the house, and then clear up the situation. Additionally the call was for TWO people breaking in. The cop finds one guy who will not cooperate what do you expect him to do? Wait until he is shot in the back? The cop forces him to comply. Then the prof goes on a race card tirade that collects a crowd. It would have been racist not to arrest him.

My brother got arrested for interfering with police because he was stuck in his row standing at his seat at a football game and the cops couldn't easily get around him to get to someone else. This shit happens to everyone.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

August 12, 2009 8:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@DoctorMD: By \"not cooperating\", you mean, showing the officer your driver's license that proves you're living in the home that was \"broken into\" then providing a reasonable explanation why you had to break into your own house?
DAMN him for being so uppity and noncooperative!

$\"user-pic\"$

Eryk

August 13, 2009 2:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Can you show me where it was stated by law enforcement that he did in fact offer to show identification? I don't mean that in a snotty way - I just never saw that this was confirmed.

Obviously if they stated they needed to see ID, and he showed it, and the result was his arrest, there's no doubt in my mind that the police acted unprofessionally at best, racist at worst. I've just never seen it confirmed.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 4:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: I understand that the part that really pissed off many law-enforcement officials is that he talked about 'being stopped while black'.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Ah cool. Though I think the \"stupid\" comment was more stupid than inflammatory, it still was not the nicest thing to say.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 2:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@JustinSane07: So we've established that you don't understand the difference between a verdict and a settlement, and you don't understand the difference between opinion and defamation. Anything you wanted to add?

$\"user-pic\"$

TCama

August 12, 2009 2:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@JustinSane07: The difference between this and the PTC/WWE case is that PTC told advertisers things that were false and defamatory, e.g. that four children had died directly as a result of WWE. Also, PTC reused copyrighted WWE material.

These people are well within their rights to talk to advertisers and encourage them to put their money elsewhere. If for some reason they were to use false information in doing so, there would be a problem. But as far as I can tell, that hasn't happened.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@JustinSane07:
I love how Colbert ripped into him this one time he totally exploited 9/11 for profit, after earlier bashing on some 9/11 widow who did not agree with his view of the world.

[Paraphrased]: \"Everyone should be able to make money out of 9/11, except for the victims of 9/11.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

Shawn4168

August 12, 2009 2:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@JustinSane07: His comments about Obama are no more slanderous than your comments about him. He has a right to express his opinion about the president, and that's all it was. He said that he believed Obama was a racist. He didn't say that Obama is, indisputably, a racist.

$\"user-pic\"$

redkamel

August 12, 2009 5:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Shawn4168: \"He said that he believed Obama was a racist. He didn't say that Obama is, indisputably, a racist.\"

Holy cow, my 1984 book came alive?!?!?!

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

guy can spew filth all he wants(BTW him stating that Obama is f=working towards reparations is near the top of ten worst things uttered on that insult of a channel). As long as he avoids labelling an innocent doctor a murderer and a serial killer there by making idiots think he actually is a murderer and serial killer then problems should come in his path. BTW O'reilly is a piece of crap.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

DoctorMD

August 12, 2009 7:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@logicalnoise: Yes because saying Obama wants reparations after SHOWING THREE VIDEO CLIPS OF OBAMA SAYING HE DOES is so horrible

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 7:51 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@DoctorMD: you left caps lock on buddy: [www.huffingtonpost.com]
He's consistly opposed them. I didn't see what clips beck aired but fox news has proven to viciously edit clips to completely reverse the intentions of the poeple they use footage of.

$\"user-pic\"$

Cylon12

August 12, 2009 4:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

My my my! Y thnk s lwly f Fx. Hmmm... y MST bn f th 10 prcnt tht dn't wtch Fx nd 'Rlly. k by, hw ds fl t b 10 prcntr?

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Cylon12: Where in the WORLD are you getting the idea that 90% of people watch Fox News and O'Reilly? Feel free to cite.

And I'm part of that alleged 10%...I feel great. Like I'm in control of my own thoughts and actions.

$\"user-pic\"$

drjayphd

August 12, 2009 6:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: There's something you don't know about Cylon12, Joe Rogan... he smokes rocks.

(Well, I don't know this for a fact, nor do I have any reason to believe it to be true. But he's banned, and I stand by my decision to bash someone while they can't defend themselves. It's fun for the whole family.)

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

August 12, 2009 5:47 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: 90% of the grumpy 73-year-old men living in trembling fear that the government's going to take over Medicare?

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Cylon12: I bet he feels just A-OK. Mainly because his senses are not bombarded with BS.

","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Chip80

August 12, 2009 2:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Everyone who is calling out freedom of speech and 1st Amendment please read the following:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now is News Corp Congress, are the advertisers Congress, and are the bloggers Congress? Can anyone tell me what this has to do with the 1st amendment or free speech. The 1st Amendment protects us from the Goverment not businesses or each other. It does say you have a free pass to say whatever you want without consequences.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The problem I have with Beck is that he/Fox claims his show is a newscast.

It's not. It's opinion/entertainment.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Urgleglurk: Apparently people in this country like their news to be entertaining.

Just look at the number of viewers/listeners for Beck, Papa Bear, Rush, and the number of people who trust Stewart and Colbert for their news and commentary. And yes, there is a difference between what Beck and Rush project themselves as, v/s what and how Colbert and Stewart do, but the end result remains the same. Less and less people trust Brian Williams to get them their news.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: A study came out recently that found that Stewart presented as much news per show as a traditional news show. And I think that he is much better at getting to the root of any issue and exposing the consequences...but maybe that's because I want to have his babies? Heh.

[newsinfo.iu.edu]

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:08 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: I do not know about the amount of news presented (because on many occasions, he will spend a big segment tearing into one single outstanding issue), but he certainly does put things into perspective and gets to the root of it, while people are just trimming the tops.

Most damningly, he also exhibits one prerequisite ability that newscasters and commentators do not: Hindsight.

PS: If I were a girl, i'd have wanted John Oliver's baby.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: Hmmm John Oliver is pretty fantastic, too...especially the accent. Yum. I like Stewart because he doesn't play a character, though....and there's something really hot about his outrage and biting wit.

I was talking to my mom about him the other day, and wondering how he gets on TV and does it all over again every night. It's maddening. I recently watched a clip from back in '04, right before the election, when he was begging, \"Please, please make the next four years super boring for me...\" I love that man.

And you're right, he definitely does tear into some issues extensively, but I think he always hits it with much more depth. I hope you saw the episode where he discussed Clinton's trip to Korea. That particular segment was probably the best 7 minutes that show has ever aired. Totally blew me away.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: Oh yeah \"Big Dog Is Back!!\"

And I love Clinton too. Despite the blowjobs, and the republicans already hating him, and half the democrats hating him after the primaries, he still is an awesome dude, and a very good president to boot.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: I don't think I can describe the level to which Clinton is admired by me, my mother, and her family. It's a little out of control. IMHO, the President can receive as many BJ's as he wants (or she, someday!), so long as he (a) doesn't use taxpayer money to obtain them, and (b) does his job well. Heck, it's been known among media circles for ages that H.W. Bush has had a decades-long affair...

How did you like the point at the end of the clip about the Iran-Contra crisis? My jaw dropped.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster:
Hey, its a stressful job... someone has to rise (kneel?) to the occasion. I'd only prefer he had not done it in the Oval Office. Also, technically, I dont think women can get \"blown\" per se. Unless they just want someone whistling down there.

Also, the Iran-Contra thing was epic. Thats exactly what my reaction too: jaw dropped. I just sat there, and the only thought was \"O... M... F... G.\".

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: True...different phrase for women, but same basic idea. I kinda wish he'd had the class to not do it in the Oval Office, while on an important call related to international relations (if I remember correctly). But oh well. I guess you take you what you can get? I get a kick out of imagining that phone call going down like the dinner conversation in Wedding Crashers, when Vince Vaughan is getting an HJ. \"Holy....holy pants and shoes!!!\"

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Urgleglurk: Actually, he does not claim it is a newscast and frequently states on his show that he is 'not a journalist'.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@lawnmowerdeth: Right.. after which he proceeds to \"tell people how it is\" and present ludicrously crazy scenarios as if it were news. And the dum dums eat it up. They think it's fact.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If advertisers should have no choice about where they advertise, then how about they just send a blank check and the network & show gets chosen in a lottery?

Of course the advertiser can distance themselves from a show epousing views they either don't agree with or are damaging to their brand.

And bloggers or ANYONE has the right to suggest an advertiser withdraw support.

What about the religious extremist groups that try and stir up boycots everytime a company institutes domestic partnership benefits? They have to right to attempt to organize a boycot and the company has the right to pay attention - or not.

I'm glad Beck's former advertisers chose to pay attention.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

takes_so_little

August 12, 2009 2:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@SkokieGuy: \"If advertisers should have no choice about where they advertise...\"

Who suggested that? It's purely their choice. They can take or not take any suggestions they like.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

FormerlyAnonymous

August 12, 2009 2:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

That people still continue to pay attention to Glenn Beck, after all of his bizarre tirades and freakouts, proves just how successful a troll he really is.

We can't stop talking about him, he's got us hooked!

This has nothing to do with speech being crushed, in any case. If Glenn Beck went off the air, he could still go to town hall meetings or public parks, where his fake crying and loudmouthery would still find some sympathizers. All this is advertisers choosing whether or not to sponsor his show. Certainly they have the right to stop sponsoring it, for whatever reason (depending on the contract, of course).

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Saboth

August 12, 2009 2:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Beck is such a source of hatred and misinformation...is it legal for him to call his show a \"news show?\" Frankly, The Daily Show is more correct in its facts. I recall the video the other day on Beck's show, he said the CARS.gov website was full of malware, and the government takes over your computer. It was an outright lie.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

DoctorMD

August 12, 2009 7:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: No he did not. Based on the wording of the disclaimer the government COULD do those things, did you even watch it?

$\"user-pic\"$

Saboth

August 12, 2009 8:11 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I did. They blatantly told people not to visit the website, and if you do, the government will have the legal right to take over your computer. His co-host mentioned malware. However, he failed to distinguish the fact he was visiting the DEALER section of the website (something you and I cannot possibly do, since we are not car dealers). Yes, if you are a dealer, participating in the federal program, and accessing the federal CARS database from your dealer computer, you MIGHT have to worry about the government wanting access to your computer. Beck and his crony failed to mention that, although I think he did say at one point under his breath \"dealer\". However, the entire \"story\" was presented in a manner to cause fear for average citizens visiting the site, as they made no mention that there was a \"dealer\" section and \"citizen\" section of the website.

$\"user-pic\"$

drjayphd

August 12, 2009 6:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: I'm not sure it's a good idea to suggest someone falls off the wagon, buuuuuuut...

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Beck is a friggin whack job, no doubt about it. He certainly has the right to say whatever he wants in this fine country but I have the right to tell his sponsors that I won't purchase from them if they are affiliating with said whack job.

Seems pretty simple to me

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

First off, I think Glenn Beck and his show are horrible. But in the end, how is Glenn Beck calling Obama a racist any different from Kayne West saying George Bush hates Black People?

8 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

August 13, 2009 12:28 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Devidence: I hate to seem like I'm nitpicking, but what Kanye West actually said was \"George Bush doesn't care about black people.\" At least IMO there's a pretty big difference between hating X and being indifferent to X.

$\"user-pic\"$

t-r0y

August 12, 2009 4:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Devidence: Obviously...

1) Kanye West is cool. Glenn Beck ... not so much.
2) Bush is Satan, Obama is the Messiah.

$\"user-pic\"$

drjayphd

August 12, 2009 6:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@t-r0y: Or...

1) Kanye West got pilloried for saying it too.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

August 12, 2009 6:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@drjayphd: And celebrated, too.
It was the chink in the dam that ended The Permanent Republican Majority.
That's what's so great about free expression. What's also great about it is that while you can say what you like, you're held accountable too.
It's always amusing when some of a certain ilk whine so pitifully when that second part kicks in. They're like those oafish playground kids that punch smaller ones in the stomach only when the victim's arms are held down who then run sobbing to the teacher when the freed kid gets his revenge.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 11:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: \"It was the chink in the dam that ended The Permanent Republican Majority.\" Please. Let's not give Kanye West all the credit.

$\"user-pic\"$

johnfrombrooklyn

August 12, 2009 2:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Here's the difference. Kanye West is an entertainer and singer and few people (besides himself) take his political comments seriously. And Kanye West's comments were unscripted, off the cuff, and not endorsed by anyone but his gigantic ego. Beck has a constant platform, millions of wackos that believe what he says, and one of the largest media companies in the world that endorse his every word.@Devidence:

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

August 12, 2009 5:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@johnfrombrooklyn: If people didn't take Kanye's comments seriously, they may have noticed the scores of Black corpses allowed to float, bloated, down New Orleans flooded streets while the Republican establishment blithely asserted that a heck of a job was being done.
Comparing West's comments with Beck's (whose other differences you've most excellently pointed out) is yet another false comparison for this reason alone.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@johnfrombrooklyn: Kanye said it during some televised fundraiser for Katrina victims I believe, not any more of an appropriate venue in my opinion. They both voiced their opinions on televised programs. Kanye's was even more appropriate to me, being that nobody was watching that fundraiser to hear political views.

They are both very famous and prominent celebrities. They both make a ton of money from their fans.

We have allowed these news networks to employ people and give them shows with no oversight, or any expectation that what they are saying is true or fair. I don't know how Beck is any different from Dobbs or Hannity overall. So what do we do, shutdown every news talkshow?

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

*Make that \"Kanye's was even less appropriate...

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 2:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Devidence: If a bunch of white bloggers started a boycott of Kanye West they would be 100% within their rights to do so. What's your point? That a black guy called a white President racist once so we should all be giving Glen Beck great big hugs, or what?

$\"user-pic\"$

rpm773

August 12, 2009 2:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Devidence: The difference is the venue. Glenn Beck did it on his television show that has sponsors, sponsors who are sensitive to PR. Kanye West let one fly at some awards show, if I recall. Colgate wasn't sponsoring his acceptance speech.

Both have the right to say such things, but they also have the right to reap what they sow.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Here's a clip from the daily show that shows the comment by Glenn Beck. Starting about 5:50 in, but the whole bit is pretty funny if you have the time.
[www.thedailyshow.com]

","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

moore850

August 12, 2009 2:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Free speech doesn't cover libel. Also, it doesn't cover inciting a riot, like shouting \"fire\" in a crowded theater. IMHO a lot of these right-wing commentators are either not protected speech or very close to it if they are inciting fear/panic through deliberate misinformation about issues.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

diasdiem

August 12, 2009 3:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@moore850: Technically, if it's not in print, it's slander. But stating an opinion is not slander. There's a difference between saying, \"Obama is a racist!\" and \"I think Obama is a racist.\" Although with his audience, the effect is pretty much the same either way.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 3:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@diasdiem: Well, no. Putting \"I think\" in front of a defamatory statement does not make it magically non-defamatory.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 5:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: It was not slanderous.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 13, 2009 3:57 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@EinhornIsAMan!: Please read the post to which I was responding. The issue isn't whether the statement is or isn't defamatory, but whether \"I think\" or \"in my opinion\" magically drains away all the defamation. It doesn't.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: It's called.. I believe.. \"history.\"

Also, \"structural racism.\" Even though you have some anecdotes wherein you think you never witnessed any racism, it's very much alive and well.

White male persecution complex is a nice example.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:51 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@veg-o-matic: I never said I've never witnessed any racism - I said that each race gives just as good as it gets. For every example of racism towards blacks I'm sure you could dig up something just as telling that goes the other way. Racism will probably never disappear, but I mean that it will never disappear from EVERY race to EVERY race. White folks discriminating against black folks is not the only kind of racism to occur in the world, check your \"history\"

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 3:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Don't tell me. Next you're going to bring up the white indentured servants who were brought to the American Colonies as proof that whites were just as much in slavery as blacks.

If you believe that \"each race\", whatever the frack that means, \"gives as good as it gets\", you're in a happy bubble where the worst racial conflict you've ever dealt with is a Kanye West quote, and you sure as shit aren't going to let anyone pop that bubble. Enjoy.

","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

h0mi

August 12, 2009 2:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If you don't like a given tv/radio show, don't watch/listen. When you make an effort to get it pulled off the air, that's not \"free speech\" but an attempt to silence opinions you don't like. It doesn't matter if it's Glenn beck, Rush Limbaugh, dr. Laura, the Ellen show, Howard stern, etc.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 2:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@h0mi: Please go re-read the First Amendment.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 2:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Look at how BHO jumped to support the black professor at Harvard over the white police officer without knowing any of the facts. He harbors some race-based discrimination/anger, be it consciously or subconsciously.

Of course, socialists are known for their group politics. Everyone needs to abandon the idiocy of group indentity politics, and just start being Americans again.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 7:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@JuliB: You're so right. This is not the forum for this.

@PunditGuy: Bill Maher suffers from stereotypical liberal \"white guilt.\" To amswer your question; yes, to some extent.

@psm321: No, Sgt. Crowley was not wrong. The Cambridge police department has stated that Crowley was completely in the right. Race didn't play a factor in the incident. Crowley was right to have been charged with Disorderly Conduct, and the charges never should have been dropped, and only were due to politics.

$\"user-pic\"$

psm321

August 13, 2009 1:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TKOtheKDR: I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. Police always tend to have an expanded view of what is right for them to do, and usually back each other up. I never claimed that race played a factor in Sgt. Crowley's decision, and neither did Obama. In fact, he explicitly disclaimed it. I don't thing Sgt. Crowley did it because Prof. Gates was black, I think he did it because he was a policeman drunk on power like most are. Anyways, this is not the right forum for this discussion like you said.

$\"user-pic\"$

psm321

August 12, 2009 5:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TKOtheKDR: The fact of the matter is that the cop was wrong. Obama would have said the same thing if the prof was white and the cop was black. Stop making everything into a racial issue.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 4:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TKOtheKDR: Bill Maher did the same thing. Does he have a deep seated hatred of white people?

As someone smarter than me pointed out: You can scream at a congresscritter at a public meeting and you're expressing your first amendment rights. But if you yell at a cop in your own house, you're disrupting the peace.

$\"user-pic\"$

JuliB

August 12, 2009 3:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TKOtheKDR: Very true. And I find the latest delving into politics to be a wrong direction for a blog aimed at consumer protection and issues.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Skater009

August 12, 2009 2:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I guess you cant say what you want anymore.

","","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 2:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Fox apparently thinks we're all so dumb that we believe advertising slots are fungible. Anyone really think that the slots the advertisers moved to are exactly the same price as \"advertising on Glen Beck\"?

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

whydidnt

August 12, 2009 2:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I thought this was a blog designed to help consumers... Has it devolved into just another dailykos leftist paper? What does this post have to do with helping us be better consumers?

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 3:08 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@whydidnt: It sure has. You probably better quit reading it. Bye, been nice to have you here.

$\"user-pic\"$

LupusGray

August 12, 2009 3:08 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@whydidnt: We're better consumers when we choose not to patronize companies that support racist, dangerous hate-speech.

$\"user-pic\"$

JuliB

August 12, 2009 3:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@whydidnt: Agree! I wouldn't want it going after leftists either, FWIW. Just stick to the consumer issues.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

my opinion is the same as yours \"Beck has the right to say whatever he wants but so do his political enemies and advertisers.\"

it doesnt matter if his political enemies dont watch his show. there are no prerequisites to use their first amendment right.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

He should say at the forefront that this is his opinion
Many people feel the same way, Obama says things whether this is his choice of words or his way of expression I do not know But I have been given the same idea in a couple of his speeches.

Mr Beck has the right to express his opinions without recourse from other people, If they disagree then that is their privilege. But to come after him in a concerned attack by a coalition is also wrong.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

johnfrombrooklyn

August 12, 2009 3:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The conservative movement has really gone bonkers. It used to be that you had a number of wealthy businessmen and politicians who just harnessed the rage of the right wackos to further their own end. Now the wackos themselves are in charge.

","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

SiDFresh

August 12, 2009 3:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I wish I could opt out of that channel from my cable offerings.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Has anyone bothered to point out that Beck devoted an entire hour of his radio show (about 35 minutes after commercials) to playing numerous sound clips from Barack Obama, Barack Obama's Book, Michelle Obama, and some of Barack Obama's self admitted mentors and advisors (such as Jeremiah Wright) to fully explain and defend his position?

You don't have to agree with Beck, but he didn't just \"call Obama a racist\" and then move on to the next phone call. He presented a thoroughly researched and well-reasoned argument that by the left's definition of racism, Obama qualifies as one.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I had never heard of this douchebag until his recent comments put him in the spotlight. If anything, he's cashing in on comments like these because we all give him attention for acting this way.

In case nobody noticed .... he's in the business of douchebaggery and the more he douchebaggifys the content of his show, the bigger the checks will be at the end of the day; Thus encouraging more douchebaggery.

","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Don't conservative groups like Focus on the Family threaten advertiser boycotts all the time? Often regarding content of shows they wouldn't be watching anyway?

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

h0mi

August 12, 2009 3:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@carlosdelvaca: yes all the time. They protested against ABC and disney throughout the 90's because of their support for gay rights or gay civil unions or tv shows that either had gay themes or portrayed gays prominently or positively (ie the lesbian kisses or coming out in the Ellen or Rosanne shows). It wasn't limited to FCC complaints either.
I've never liked or supported protests that target advetisers; this strikes me as crossing a line between expressing your view and imposing it. But it irritated me more to see people complain about such targeted protests when their ox is being gored while resorting to the same dispicable tactics for political opponents. If it's ok to protest Beck like this, it's ok to protest Mahr.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 9:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@h0mi: what about corporations owning the enws and influencing it? You know like FOX does as well as most every major source of news.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 3:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@h0mi: Do you not understand the difference between \"they shouldn't be complaining to advertisers about X\" and \"they shouldn't be complaining to advertisers\"?

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 3:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@carlosdelvaca: Sure. They're completely within their rights to do so. They're doing it for the wrong reasons, but the boycott itself is not wrong.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

let's be clear here. Glenn Beck can say whatever he wants, but not while he's on a news network.

Even if you're not actually running a news program, so long as you're on a news network you're obligated make your best effort to report the truth and not half-truths, innuendo, or lies.

","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 3:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: And as expected, while nobody called you a racist, you wanted to be a martyr so badly that you're just going to pretend somebody did.

","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Freedom of speech guarantees you can say something. It was never intended to mean you are guaranteed to GET PAID to say something. Glenn Beck, if he is fired, can continue to say whatever he wants for free from his porch.

","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reily are fascists who can go 69 each other.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 3:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

\"Obama is a racist\" detracts from his being a statist.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Cylon12

August 12, 2009 3:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

k flks.... Y ll vtd fr blck mn t b prsdnt. Nw lv wth wht y dd. Dsgstng!

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

SlayBelle

August 12, 2009 3:11 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Cylon12: Wow, really? Don't you have a rock to be under?

","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 4:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Red_Monkey: You've never heard of Stuff White People Like?

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

August 12, 2009 4:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Consumerist, can you provide a link to the Gawker graphic & story showing how Fox News does better the worse the Republican Party does in the polls?

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

merist

August 12, 2009 4:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: I asked a similar question to a gay friend. Why do you have \"Gay Art Showings\", \"Gay Film Festivals\" and \"Gay Pride\" parades.

His answer was...

It was an affirmation that being Gay is ok. That is, after being told your entire life that you are less than human, different, or \"Queer.\" that these events affirmed that you are not what others tell you, but what you contribute.

As far as why there isn't \"White Entertainment Television.\" If you have a cable system with 50 channels, probably 90% of those channels are \"White Entertainment.\" No need to create one explicitly. That being said, back when I had cable I always liked \"Spike TV\" - The channel for men.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 9:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@merist: You get it.

It's about pride and community uplift, it's not about separatism.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 4:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Good work. keep it up Blogger's.

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

dinanm3atl

August 12, 2009 4:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Man you guys/girls sure do get worked up over very little. If you believe Fox News is just hate mongering then don't watch it.

O'Reilly, Beck and others become more popular and more people watch them and you sit at home... angry that they are so 'stupid' and they are 'crap' and blah blah blah. You just get more and more angry as they get more and more popular.

Take a deep breathe, go outside and take a brisk walk and calm down.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 4:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@dinanm3atl: We're sitting around having discussions on an online blog. Sounds like the guy who needs to chill the frack out is the one you see in the mirror.

$\"user-pic\"$

Burning pakalolo not even noticing the weather

August 12, 2009 5:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: its not about us having a discussion on this blog, in America people tend to get \"offended\" over everything and then want it off the air. I agree with Dinanm3atl, don't like it, change the station or turn it off.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 13, 2009 3:59 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@itiswhatitis: So if I find out Acme Soap gives a ton of money to PETA, I'm not allowed to tell Acme Soap why I am choosing not to buy their product anymore? Really, WTF?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 4:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This question never fails to amuse me. I'm from a group that has been historically oppressed and still marginalized, and even I don't sit around feeling sorry for myself all the time because things aren't targeted for me.

Sure I notice that the kinkiest hair that you see on commercials most of the time is a loose multiracial curl, usually on someone with lighter skin. Sure, I get tired of people asking to touch my hair and asking me what \"black people think\" about certain issues or commenting on how eloquent I am, or asking me if I've ever been pregnant.

But somehow, though I am presented with this stuff every moment of every day, I manage not to get my panties perpetually in a bunch over it. Instead, I channel my energies toward sociological research. And yet, at least once a week I have to listen to some poor martyred white person, usually male, complain about BET and organizations with the name black in them. I mean, are you serious? You can't think of ANY legitimate reasons why these organizations exist?

I'll add this to the fray.

Organizations with black in the name have not and never will be as racially exclusive as similar institutions in America that cater to but aren't named after White Americans. Historically black colleges and universities accept white applicants with welcome. The NAACP has white members, and historically was composed of mostly white members with W.E.B Du Bois serving as the only black representative. If you want to be a part of these affiliate organizations, feel free; the only thing stopping you is yourself. In comparison, laws, ostracism and violence have been used to keep blacks out of organizations ostensibly open to \"everyone.\"

For the record, I think the programming of BET is awful, and I haven't lingered over it for more than thirty seconds in about 6 years. But my qualm is in its representation of black people not in its existence.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 9:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@aguacarbonica: Heartclick for honesty and intelligence. Thank you, I hope radi0logy reads this once or twice.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 13, 2009 2:20 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@BlazerUnit is now a part of UppityDragon Wireless:

Thank you :) I hope he reads my second one. I'm so glad that I got a degree in Sociology so I can argue with sheltered people on the Internet!

$\"user-pic\"$

treimel

August 12, 2009 8:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@aguacarbonica:
Boy that's not what the Black Panthers told me..
I kid, I kid...

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 4:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@aguacarbonica: The only thing I can really say here is that I think you miss the point - I have no issue with there BEING a BET - More power to them! My issue is that WERE there to be a White Entertainment Network, they would be picketed, boycotted and sued into the ground before even going on the air.

As a side note \"In comparison, laws, ostracism and violence have been used to keep blacks out of organizations ostensibly open to \"everyone.\"\", implies past tense. I'm sorry my grandmother was a racist. Shes dead now, I don't have any control over what she did and don't think its fair that I be held accountable for her actions.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 13, 2009 2:18 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I didn't miss the point, love. If you agree that there is a legitimate purpose for the existence of these organizations - and you should - it is irrelevant whether or not the creation of an organization with white in the name would be met with protest.

It's true, it would. And most of the people on the front line would be white people. The primary thing keeping such organizations from existing is white guilt. If you really believe that 12% of American, most of whom live in poverty are determining how the primarily white-owned and white-servicing media market and broadcast to Americans, you are truly deluded. White Americans, even while many of them blindly benefit from the privilege of their heritage, are generally disgusted by frank acknowledgements of race. This is why so many posters continue to advocate not not discussing race as a solution to America's race problems. Any logical person with a reasonable sociohistorical perspective can see how fallacious this approach would be.

Now for an English lesson:

The construction that I used, \"have been\" is actually the present perfect tense. To quote www.englishpage.com, \"We also use the Present Perfect to talk about several different actions which have occurred in the past at different times. Present Perfect suggests the process is not complete and more actions are possible.

I hope that helps your future attempts at snark as you continue your journey into the depths of willful historical ignorance.

Additionally, I dare say that no one is holding you responsible for the privilege you have reaped due to your race and which your grandmother was a direct beneficiary of by not allowing you to have White Entertainment Television. If you were held accountable, you would probably be living in poverty, not having the benefit of my grandmother's free labor to profit from.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 13, 2009 2:26 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@aguacarbonica:

Typing this on such an awful computer really wore on my patience for editing my posters. Apologies to anyone who is reading it for the typos.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 13, 2009 2:25 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@aguacarbonica: Thank you for approaching my original query with honesty and openness. I agree with most of what you said (personal insults notwithstanding), with the exception of whether a white named organization being met with protest is irrelevant. But we can agree to disagree on that point.

$\"user-pic\"$

korybing

August 13, 2009 3:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: \"I know saying white folks being frightened over racial issues will generate plenty of eye-rolling\"

A little off topic, but I thought I'd add my two cents in for this thread of thinking. I was raised in the middle of rural Missouri, 99% whitebread super hickville Larry the Cable Guy stereotypes galore. We had one black family and they were the only non-whites in the entire county. The majority of my experience with minorities was through TV, which taught me little more than \"all white people are racist, and all non-white people hate white people because they are racist, or that any accidental slight that a white person makes will be taken as an incredible offense to anyone within earshot.\"

I know now that this is because the sitcoms and stuff I watched as a kid were hugely exaggerated for comedic sake, and that nobody ever acts like a real person in sitcoms, but as a kid this terrified me to the point where now I am still afraid that I will accidentally say something wrong that will be misinterpreted as racist and that people will get the wrong idea about me. So I feel like I can't ask questions about other cultures I want to learn more about or I can't ask questions about minorities because those questions will be misinterpreted as racist. Hell I felt really weird for even asking my black roommate in college what \"relaxing your hair\" meant, because I had no idea. I felt like a racist for saying that I think afros are really cool and wish I had the ability to grow one. I feel weird when I draw a comic with non-white people in it because I am afraid someone will think my non-white characters are racist caricatures, even if I am directly referencing photographs and not exaggerating features in any way.

Just getting out of my small town and living in a more diverse area has helped me grow out of a lot of those insecurities, but the fear of being misunderstood is still there. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I know I'm not the only white person who is terrified over racial issues, and I'm always afraid that someone will just assume I'm racist because I'm white and grew up in the middle of nowhere.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 13, 2009 8:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I can't speak for all black people, but I know that my friends and I feel your frustration and agree. I actually hate that so many white people feel anxious about discussing anything involving race because it leads to two results:

1) We can't have productive discussions about serious race issues because everyone insists on being \"colorblind\" and is afraid of offending
2)It makes it awkward for us

If you feel anxious and upset about accidentally drawing something that is perceived as racist, imagine how I feel EVERY TIME I'm present for a discussion of race or blackness or civil rights or affirmative action and everyone swivels around to STARE at me in nervous anticipation of whether \"the\" black person will validate or invalidate their own opinions or feelings.

It's nice that you think afros are cool, and honestly I wish that more black people held the same opinion but can you understand that your perception of coolness comes directly as a result of ethnic othering in the US. If kinky/curly hair were accepted as just another hair type, afro-wearers could rest assured that you found their hair beautiful rather than just curious, like a zoo animal.

I'm geninuely not picking on you or calling you racist but I feel that minorities are unfairly blamed for the discomfort that white people feel about race. All those things that you are afraid of doing on accident are a direct result of racism in America. It's not your fault but it deserves your understanding.

$\"user-pic\"$

korybing

August 14, 2009 1:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@aguacarbonica: \"I'm geninuely not picking on you or calling you racist but I feel that minorities are unfairly blamed for the discomfort that white people feel about race. All those things that you are afraid of doing on accident are a direct result of racism in America. It's not your fault but it deserves your understanding.\"

Oh no, I get what you're saying, and I'm not trying to say that I blame minorities for my own insecurities. One of the reasons I'm terrified that people will mistake me as a racist white rural person is because I've seen PLENTY of racist white rural people growing up, and I am afraid that other people (of any race) will think I'm just like them. Another reason I'm scared is because I'm a chronic perfectionist that feels that if I can't do something 100% right the first time then the world will end, which has absolutely nothing to do with race, the media I was raised on, or my culture upbringing, hah.

It wasn't until I had a roommate in college who happened to be black where I got comfortable enough to have decent conversations about issues I was too afraid to bring up before because I thought someone might mistake them for racism, and found out that a lot of what I thought could be \"racist\" wasn't racist at all, but ended up being cultural differences between city and rural life (and it just happens that rural areas have higher concentrations of caucasians while urban areas are more diverse). That realization helped me a lot.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 13, 2009 6:49 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@korybing: I *Definitely* Understand where you are coming from here. I really appreciate people that can approach this conversation on a personal level, as opposed to the offended, holier than thou, \"I'm perfect, you're dumb\" attitudes of the Mythagos and Thegirls of the boards here.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 13, 2009 9:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Ths issue with your question is that you're assuming everyone cares.

The actual problem is how many people allow the experiences associated with the pigmentation of their skin define themselves. Are you going to be that close-minded for your life? I always thought a person's actions and the way they present themselves will determine how I treat them, not the pigment in their skin. You can let your upbringing, experiences and environment shape you openly, but why the hell would you degrade yourself into being defined by just a color? What is so wrong with being just an American? Or even just human?

I'm sorry there are so many close-minded people in this world who may never change but you only have one life and it is far too short to let some hate spewing bastards get in the way of your happiness. Pity them, exercise your rights in this country, and tell them it isn't 1950 anymore, because racism is nothing more than a social construct only fed by those same close-minded people. The more you play into it, the longer it will affect everyone..

$\"user-pic\"$

August 13, 2009 10:49 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@saintmanda: Ok I don't even know what the heck you're talking about.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 13, 2009 8:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The difference between korybing and you is that he or she posted about his valid feelings of discomfort about race and being perceived as racist. You, on the other hand started an inflammatory argument about how unfair it was that a media-marginalized group came up with its own media channel to serve people who had been previously ignored.

And another point...after BET was no longer feeling an explicit niche by representing the ONLY black faces on television, what did you expect to happen? For it to just evaporate into thin air? For them to change a name that has served perfectly well in the market because WET didn't get a chance to exist? Should the NAACP change its name to the National Association of People to please you as well?

$\"user-pic\"$

August 13, 2009 10:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@aguacarbonica: You can stop with the overzealous finger wagging at this point, we get it. You value your own opinions highly. Clearly, your opinions on the matter are unassailable, and no white man could understand where you are coming from.

Coincidentally, do you not find it somewhat disingenuous disregarding the effects of minority power on media/culture in the very article about that minority wielding their power like a saber and cutting through the advertising backbone of a television show giving a point of view? The irony isn't lost on me, I wonder if you are so insightful that it isn't lost on you.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 13, 2009 11:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

You're the reason why people like korybing can't discuss anything related to race. As soon as someone attempts to have a candid discussion about race and actually express feelings and opinions, you shut off the dialogue because it makes you uncomfortable. Because of people like you, everyone walks around wondering what people from other racial groups are thinking, or what is offending them, rather than just asking. In any case, I wouldn't be so insulting to all white men as to suggest they share your same level of understanding.

My opinions are not unassailable, you in particular just can't stand the fire. Which is disappointing, because I was actually hoping you would debate with me instead of getting butthurt and running away. I actually expected you to attempt to address my points so I put a lot out on the floor...clearly I shouldn't have had such high expectations.

And no, I don't find that disingenuous at all. \"They\" don't have any power. Just because some advertisers agreed with their points, doesn't mean they exercised some sort of voodoo minority magic. In fact, you conflating one group of black bloggers with an entire minority group's media power is very revealing about you. So I guess unless you want to address my other points you ignored...we're done, right?

$\"user-pic\"$

August 14, 2009 12:02 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@aguacarbonica: Yep, we're done. You can continue on your way, with a self-important grin on your face that you certainly exposed me for what I am with your impenetrable logic and life experiences. Clearly, I'm so uncomfortable facing \"the truth\" (which happens to be \"your truth\"), that I can't take it anymore. When actually, I just can't take your overbearing sense of self-importance. THAT's the stifling thing here.

Sense of entitlement rubs both ways, eh?

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

dangerp

August 12, 2009 4:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is something I don't quite understand. When Kanye West said that bush \"hates black people\", nobody cared. When the reverse is said about obama, people flip out. Neither statement was based on fact, and I seriously don't believe that either president was any kind of racist. To me, this does sound like reverse discrimination.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 9:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@dangerp: kanye is an idiot savant musician who know nothing of the real world. Glenn beck is an idiot dumbass who can convince other idiots that teh world is flat.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 5:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@dangerp: \"Nobody cared\"? You have an extremely selective memory.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

AndyAgent87

August 12, 2009 4:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

OFFEND AND BE OFFENDED! Good for the \"bloggers\" for boycotting, and good for Beck for voicing his substantiated opinion. Obama quickly jumped on the side of the Cambridge professor without any info and assumed the cops acted \"stupidly\". Plus, he attended a rascist church for several years and then claims he didn't take a rascist message to heart. Who the hell goes to church for that long just for show? We should hold our public officials to the highest regard possible and scrutinize everything.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

August 14, 2009 1:34 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Because it was beneficial for Obama to go to that church and to appear to have the same kind of views as his constituents (as a politician) and those he was working with as a community organizer. People identify with those like them, and that is certainly the case with politics. It's the same reason that he quickly ditched Wright when the controversy started heating up during the campaign: Obama wants to appear as someone who shares the mainstream's views so as to get votes that way.

Cheers!

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

edosan

August 12, 2009 4:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Your inability to understand things is amusing.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

cete-of-badgers

August 12, 2009 4:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Obama's mother is white. What a dumbshit this guy is.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 5:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: What do you think would be involved in a White Entertainment Network? How would it be any different from the de facto White Entertainment Networks that already clog the airwaves?

As you know but don't want to admit, it's because putting the appellation \"White\" on a name is something traditionally done by racist groups.

7 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 6:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: any group that stands behind the term \"race\" is in fact perpetuating the very notion they claim to be against.

There is no Race except for Humans. And our differences are cultural and nothing more.

$\"user-pic\"$

treimel

August 12, 2009 8:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

You know what, this \"race doesn't exist\" biologically stuff is a nice talking point, but it's not actually true. Fact is, one needs to consider race when, say, reseaching sickle cell anemia, or Tay-sachs disease. I both cases, my Irish butt can't help in a research study. In actuality, in the hard science where lives are lost if biological facts are ignored--medicine--race is not only accepted as real, it's an integral part of the studies.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 5:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: I know it and admit it - but is using white inherently racist? Or have white folks just been frightened and brow beaten to the point of somehow believing its racist to say so?

I know saying white folks being frightened over racial issues will generate plenty of eye-rolling, but I defy any of you to deny that were you creating an organization, you would avoid putting \"white\" in the title, even if the target audience was white, out of nothing more than fear over repercussions from both blacks and whites that see that word as inherently racist.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 13, 2009 2:35 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I would be frightened if I were part of a group that had and continues to benefit from ill-gotten privilege, and someone asked me to reflect honestly about that. Especially since we live in a so-called \"meritocracy.\" I mean, it's almost like I would have to acknowledge that I am not solely responsible for all of my accomplishments and that someone else had suffered to give me what I have!

We always fear guilt and discomfort. P.S. if you want to know who made that word racist, don't blame modern liberals. Point your finger at such fine organizations as the White League, founded in 1874 or the Knights of the White Camelia in 1876.

But I'm sure you could totally come up with some organization names with White in them for the benefit of the society. The White Citizens' Council and the White Citizens Parties sound lovely. Citizens? Council? Parties? Sounds so Democratic. Too bad they are already taken. Look it up.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 9:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: I won't deny it. Having 'white' in the the title of your organization (as you described) would indeed be problematic and found offensive. And it should be.

And let's be fair, you continue to ignore the reasoning behind the original creation of these minority-based institutions. You really seem to equate the chartering of the NAACP in 1909 to the founding of the NAAWP in 1953/1980, and that's absolutely ludicrous for more than obvious reasons.

You might not be a racist, but you are definitely proving yourself to be both culturally and socially sheltered. Keep going if you must, but I hope you'll consider using padded gloves while using your shovel...

$\"user-pic\"$

picardia

August 12, 2009 7:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: So many people are giving you good, insightful, polite answers, and you're just ignoring them. It's sad.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 5:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: If I were forming a social club for white people to get together and talk about how we can overcome our racist upbringing, I would have no qualms at all about calling the group White People Against Racism. It would be flat-out dumb to \"avoid putting 'white' in the title\".

Oh, and I'm \"white folks\", so you can un-appoint yourself from the position of Great Spokesman for the Melanin-Challenged. There's a lot of room between annoying white guilt and \"waaa, racism is dead so stop picking on me\". I invite you to find it.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 5:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: Haha good for you, the one title where it probably wouldn't encourage backlash.

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 6:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: I could make a list. Your argument was wrong. What you're not wanting to get is that calling something \"White ______\" gets negative reactions not because black people are mean and hypocritical, but because racists have and continue to use the preface \"White\" as a codeword for \"you inferior nonwhite people stay away\".

So it's silly and disingenuous to scold people for being aware of that history (and current practice) and for making the reasonable assumption that \"White Network News\" is probably not sponsored by the Rainbow Coalition.

$\"user-pic\"$

thegirls

August 12, 2009 5:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: I'm with you. We've now been dragged dangerously close straw man territory.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

octopede

August 12, 2009 5:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If I bought a shampoo that made my scalp hurt, and the manufacturer responded by blaming my scalp and rattling their PR sword, I'd email Consumerist and try to rally the internet troops, so to speak. Glenn Beck is a consumer product; he has a show, he has advertising. He's engaged in incendiary rhetoric, and there are a lot of consumers who can treat him the way I would treat that shampoo. Good for them.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 5:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Radi0logy
BET is owned by Viacom (i.e. MTV), and Black Enterprise is published more as a gateway for fortune 500 companies to advertise, recruit minorities in business. The Society of Black Engineers has more to do with the historical aspects of the profession, recruitment of minorities, and scholarships opportunities. They have nothing to do with separatism but rather a direct connect to a minority demographic. If you notice, advertising on BET is specifically targeted to an urban market.

","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

illtron

August 12, 2009 6:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'm pretty sure the right to say whatever you want ends when you start passing crazy made up shit off as facts. This loon pushes that boundary on a regular basis.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

PsiCop

August 12, 2009 6:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

There are a few considerations here.

1. It cannot be said that Beck said anything overtly \"racist.\" He accused Obama of being racist and of hating white people. But that is not necessarily \"racism\" itself ... yes, even though it is an accusation of racism. One can only infer, from the fact that he said this, that Beck is a racist. Unfortunately it's not proof he's a racist.

2. What Beck said is outrageous and incendiary. Unnecessarily so. No doubt about that. But consider ... how has he made his career? How did he even get a TV show in the first place? Think about it for just a moment. Yes, that's right ... he's on TV because he says outrageous and incendiary things.

3. Inevitably, Beck's fans will rally to him because of this, and not back off. They will support and protect him, and become even more loyal to him than they already are. Also, his ratings will go up, 'cause people who don't already watch him will want to see the next time he rams both feet down his own throat. This is not true only of political commentators ... it happens with shock-DJs (e.g. Howard Stern) and others too. It's a generalized, apolitical tendency.

4. Are we to be surprised, then, that someone whose career is founded on outrageous and incendiary statements, and who counts on a certain number of folks to defend him no matter what he does, said something outrageous and incendiary? That's why people watch him. Viewers don't tune in to wimpy milquetoasts who never say anything that angers people. If this tendency hadn't already existed before Beck's show first aired, we'd never have known who he was.

5. In many ways, then, Beck is the product, NOT the creator, of a mass-media culture in which people go too far, as Beck did. The mass media are now home to many kinds of immaturity, outrage, and sanctimony. The public has essentially incentivized this behavior.

6. Am I saying to let Beck off the hook? No way. He should reap what he sowed. He made a choice to go too far. He should not be allowed just to skate on it. A suspension is in order, at the least, however his network being Fox News, one can count on that never happening.

7. The bottom line is that we — the American people, the mass-media listeners, viewers and readers — have created an atmosphere where outrageous and unacceptable comments are the order of the day. We need to decide, collectively, what it is we'll stand for and what we won't. We need to impose more limits on these people so they get a better idea of what they should say and what they shouldn't. And when they go too far, we ALL need to ask that they man up and take their lumps for it — even in cases where we sympathize with them because they're of our own ideology.

8. Thus, Rightists as well as Leftists ought to be equally outraged by Beck and be equal in their demand that he be punished for this. Will this happen? I doubt it. Rightists love to pontificate on their putatively superior morality ... but they never seem to ask their own leaders to actually behave according to superior morals.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

DovS

August 12, 2009 6:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I honestly don't understand why the petition only demanded that advertisers pull support from Beck's show. Glenn Beck did not initially make those racist remarks on his own show. He made them as a guest on another Fox show, one which previously featured a segment in which one of the hosts lamented the fact that Americans don't breed as purely as the Swedish since we marry \"other species\".

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

S-the-K

August 12, 2009 6:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It's a shame you can't tell the truth in this country without some racist Community Organizers rallying up a mob to send a bunch of email claiming alleged offense.

The last thing the Community Organizers want is for their mob to start thinking for themselves and ask, \"why do I want my health care to be of the same efficiency and convenience as the Post Office?\"

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 8:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@S-the-K: Talking Points Bingo!

","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 7:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I love Beck, just about the only guy on network news who tells the truth. YOU GO GLENN!!!

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

drjayphd

August 12, 2009 7:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ferris209: Go where? Away?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 7:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eryk: What color is the Senate? The House? Most wealthy people?

That would be the privileged race, no matter what proportion of the population they make up...

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Eryk

August 12, 2009 7:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@JennQPublic: Fair enough - I don't know that I'd call it \"privileged\" persay, but I hear your point and acknowledge it.

If you're trying to say that all the white people in the Congress have been privileged, and as a result obtained their status in life based on the color of their skin, that's quite a big charge - you have proof I'm assuming that it wasn't hard work that got them there?

The money part I'll give you for sure - money gets you alot of places, and there are plenty of rich white people. Moreso than the other demographics.

So you would conclude that when the majority of white people are out of power, they become the minority, correct?

Some state its about population, some about power, some about status....Jesus Christ people. What is it people want? Will the world be satisfied when white people are wiped off the globe? Is that what it will take?

Instead of that, how about we fight racism whereever it exists? Company doesn't hire you and shows a favorable record towards white people? Get the government to come down on them - HARD. Denied entry to med school and they have a history of shuffling the hispanics out of the application pile? Get the government to shut down the school. Fight it whereever it exists.

But I have a serious problem with the fact that since I was born white, and into a family that didn't have much money, that I was able to put myself thru college, worked hard, and obtained a decent job that allows me and my family to exist with a roof over my head. But I suppose since I'm white, I should have turned down my degree, my job, and my credit line because it is possible I got those things because I'm white - not because of effort. I'm the \"bad guy.'

Yes, I know you can say that minorities have to work twice as hard to get the same, and in many cases I 100% completely agree - but what should I do? As part of a family that came over in the 40s, fought for equal rights, and embraces the fact that everyone should have an equal shot, should it be fair that I (or anyone else) get screwed out of something due to my color?

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 7:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I am not going to pay to advertise my product via a media outlet which makes disparaging remarks about my business or my friends/allies/politics/religon/town etc etc

","","","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Quibbs0

August 12, 2009 7:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

why is it always ok for everyone to call white people racist and then when the tables are turned, all of a sudden, everybody is offended?

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 8:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: I know plenty of white people who are very proud of their ethnic heritage, and identify themselves as \"Polish-American\" or \"Irish-American\" or \"Japanese-American\". Heck, I'm told that there are entire holidays devoted to celebrating one's silly sub-title heritage....can't remember quite what it is, something about green?

Of course \"white people\" doesn't mean supremacists; those people refer themselves as \"members of the White Race\".

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 8:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I agree with the general sentiment here. He can feel free to say whatever he wants, but if Kellog's can oust Michael Phelps because his pot-smoking wasn't the sort of image they wanted to associate with, advertisers better think twice before associating themselves with a TV host on a NEWS station who calls our president a racist & incites chaos among the American people.

Nobody was asking Glenn Beck to stop saying what he's saying, but asking his advertisers to pull out or risk being associated with his rhetoric certainly sends a message.

","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 9:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

That guy looks like a douche. I want to get my tree pruners and cut off his oh-so-pointy finger.

Put that thing down, douchebag!

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 12, 2009 9:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@vorpal_hamster: Good thing you aren't a lesbian. If you were, and you had a dollar for every guy who asked you to do a three-way with his girlfriend, every straight person who asked you how you might like dick if you just gave it a try, and every straight woman who was positive you were coming on to her, you could buy out Jimmy Choo.

","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 12, 2009 11:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@BlazerUnit is now a part of UppityDragon Wireless: Frankly I'm amazed at your ability to seemingly read through this massive thread, without apparently understanding a thing that's been written.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Squeezer99

August 12, 2009 11:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

everything i've seen from obama shows he's racist. and example is accusing the cambridge police when admitting that he didn't know all of the facts.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

benjimandodd

August 13, 2009 9:50 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

So what I'm wondering is the reason behind these remarks. Yeah Glenn Beck can be outlandish but everytime I watch them he presents the story behind it.

Every comment on here says \"Yeah Glenn beck called so and so a _____) But why???? I'm sorry but Glenn Beck didn't just get on the air, start talking about football and go \"Oh by the way, Obama's a racist\".

I actually like Glenn Beck. Yeah some of the things he says are a bit crazy but for the most part the dude is spot on. He takes what the politicians say and puts it in laymens terms. Like back a few months ago he proved with very well illustrated logic the fact that the treasury was borrowing money from itself!

He also has very correct views on business. Government shouldn't be helping businesses. THis is capitalism. Businesses are created and they die. It's the natural process of capitalism. If there's a need for something, the business will happen. When there isn't it dies. If someone's doing the process better well kudos to them.

And while I don't think I consider President Obama a racist there is racism against white people. There is also still racism against black people. it sucks but it's there.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

slimdim

August 13, 2009 2:14 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

A little off topic:
How about commercials with criminals being portrayed, they're ALL white? The companies don't want to offend anyone, but OBVIOUSLY it's ok because white people cannot be offended???????????
I don't watch Beck but he didn't slander (make a negative comment) black people. He said that Obama.......... Let's look at it as Obama has some interesting \"FRIENDS\". First, Rev. Wright and now the Professor. How about some of the comments his \"FRIENDS\" have said?????? Those aren't racist views though, because, white people can't be offended and other races can't be racist? LOL, LMFAO!!!!!

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 13, 2009 3:04 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Of course it's not irrelevant. It's relevant because, as has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, \"White\" has virtually always been used to indicate that the institution in question is white-supremacist or, at a minimum, white-exclusive.

It's as if you're complaining that if you put a giant crucifix on the back of your jacket, people will think you're Christian when you really meant it as a symbol of the glory of the Emperor Constantine. You can't magically erase the traditional meaning of a symbol or a word, or pretend that people who make the logical and traditional association with that word are wrong and you're right.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 13, 2009 3:06 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Any person who looks like a tool and acts the part should not be on TV. Would you want to see a future Hitler having his own talk show broadcasted to millions of people?

That being said, this is Fox News we're talking about, the network news channel which should be taken almost as seriously as pro wrestling.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Hybriddeathdealer

August 13, 2009 8:19 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

These talk show and news show hosts are nothing more than salesmen, marketing an agenda that circulates throughout the Industry.
Glenn Beck is an ass. Why he's an ass is because he is a sellout, pure and simple. Even though Glenn Beck and Mitt Romney both are Mormons, he had issues with Mitt Romney and was raking Romney over the coals on his talk show at the beginning of the elections. Then suddenly, Glenn Beck reverses himself and starts pushing Romney on his talk show. Not long afterwards he gets his very own television show on CNN's alternate Headline News station and later with Fox News and the circus show he does now.

Glenn Beck knows just enough to be dangerous, but let's face it, he's a really good salesman, which of course is why Fox hired him. Unfortunately, people repeat the lies Glenn Beck spews as fact. I don't care how much he shouts, or how many supposed experts he brings in, the man does not tell the truth. He is Purely a political salesman, bought and paid for.
What hurts most is what he said about one of my acquaintance friends online, who is Van Jones, who started the organization: 'Green for All'. They care about two things that also happen to matter to me, which is helping the poor by getting them 'Green' jobs. Van Jones is an educated American, polite, respectful, eloquent speaker and recently became an adviser to President Obama. Yet Glenn Beck had the Gall last week to call Van Jones, \"A known communist!\" , which is a complete fabrication and an outright lie. Not only is Glenn Beck obviously wrong to make a statement like this, but worse than that, it is just plain mean spirited. Van Jones is a family man and an entrepreneur who has given up a lot to help others succeed and to make our environment better. Last I heard, someone working to get people jobs, makes that person a capitalist, as well as a humanitarian. Van Jones, like President Obama, had chosen to help society, along with making the world we live in a better place and not for a lot of money either. That's called sacrifice! Glenn Beck is clearly the polar opposite of both those men and he should be ashamed of himself. He is NOT in their league. As my Mother always said, \"Just because you can do a thing, does not mean that you should\"...

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

benjimandodd

August 13, 2009 10:09 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

How is this NOT completely true?

","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Craysh

August 20, 2009 12:13 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

The way I see it is the same way I saw the Dixie Chicks.
I may not support what they say, and they can't force me to buy what they pedal. Therefore, boycotting the people who support the person I do not support is very American.

","");