"Objective" attack on Glenn Beck at the WP

Tea Party at Perrysburg spends a great deal of time researching political trends, current issues and background information on various topics. I have listened to Glenn Beck for many years on the radio; one of the funniest bits I've ever heard was Beck's reaction to the re-election of Bush. I tried to watch Beck's show on Headline News, but it was less than intriguing. When Beck moved to Fox News, I must confess I was a bit put off by the crying, even though I was familiar with his personality and emotive style of connecting with the public.

Still, I couldn't stop watching.

Many days I am extremely uncomfortable with the things Beck says. It feels like work listening to him and I'd rather run away from the hard facts he presents because I can't stand watching these things happen to the beloved country.

Sometimes Beck overreacts, such as the fuss he made over the Rockefeller Plaza bas relief. I thought it was overdone. I was put off when he said Obama is prejudiced against white people. While I hold out the option that this most probably is verifiable through his actions, I was uncomfortable that it was said on national tv. I wish he hadn't said it.

But, of course, the left wing leapt on it as the reason that Beck should be booted from tv.

But, in general, Glenn Beck verifies everything he reports. He is educating the public in a way that many, no, MOST sources simply do not. Who would have thought a chalkboard and a web of previously unknown people would have captivated the public the way it has? Isn't it because it's the first time in years that we actually feel like we are LEARNING rather than than being fed empty pablum that has been run through a filter first?

So reading this editorial by Dana Milbank makes one ask: What are they so afraid of? The fact that, of the top 20 most watched news programs, Fox owns the first ten and # 12 spots?

Why are they so afraid of Beck?

Milbank's criticism of Beck for having talked about conspiracy theories isn't borne out by truth the way Beck's facts are.

Whether you like Beck or not, the fact is that he sources his subjects. He bases his theories on FACT; we can decide what we think is verifiable or not. Beck throws the opportunities out to the public to make up our minds for ourselves, with an impassioned hope that we do.

I saw the notation in Obama's plan to force "volunteerism" on the public, including retirees, and then noticed when they scrubbed the website. I read the reports that Dr. Emanuel recommended that quality of life panels be set up to determine who gets health care and who doesn't. (Hint: If you're old, you're unqualified.) I saw the video of Van Jones declaring that tax dollars should be given to "victims" of prejudice. I've read in other places about the Goldman Sachs connections to all the money being blown on the various foolish spending programs. Before Beck talked about it, I researched the fact that we had $850 billion in circulation when Obama came into office and that we then printed an ADDITIONAL $850 billion. Who's worried about hyperinflation?

In short, everything Beck talks about is verifiable if one is willing to do a little research.

But then, that's the key, isn't it?

Let's be honest. Does anyone honestly think that we'd ever hear from a gathering of black conservatives at CNN? The Washington Post? The New York Times?

Are conservative talking heads treated with respect on CNN, MSNBC, or ABC, as Bob Beckel, Kirsten Powers or Alan Colmes or Mara Liasson or Juan Williams are on Fox? We are "allowed" to really LIKE these people (Well, maybe not Alan) by the respect with which liberals are treated on Fox, unlike liberal leaning networks.

So read this article at the Washington Post and just think about what Milbank is saying. And we're supposed to take these people seriously. They aren't talking about us, are they.

Are they? Read over at Washington Post.