If you don’t know what Google Alerts are, you should. It’s a Google service that sends you an email with the most popular internet headlines surrounding your chosen topic. They can be personalized to your likings and ignored when you don’t want them. Awesome.

One of my Google Alerts is Glenn Beck. It does a pretty good job of keeping me updated on internet buzz and can be counted on to catch anything notable. And, according to yesterday’s alert, sometimes a little extra.

My December 2nd update had “Quick Fact: Beck goes rogue on cap-and-trade facts” as the first headline and “Douche maker sues O’Reilly, Beck over trademark infringement . Yes, you read that correctly (read again just to be sure).

Like  it did to you, the headline caught my attention. What!? I couldn’t believe it. What was a douche maker suing Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck for?

The next line shows the article came from theDiscust.com with ‘satire’ in parenthesis next to it- indicating the site is a news parody site, not genuine news. This quickly explained a lot, yet my attention was hooked. After clicking through the link and reading the article in its entirety, the whole situation sparked my thinking.

First of all, why is this article the second entry in my Google News Alert? This doesn’t quite fit my description of “news”! Based on what I know about how Google works, this article must have lots of people reading it, linking to it, and talking about it. Why? I have a few ideas.

Most obviously, it’s funny. It’s funny because it doesn’t hatefully attack Beck and O’Reilly, it just calls them douches in a comical way and harmless way. Critics and fans alike can laugh at such superficial mockery.

Another reason the article may be so popular is the absurdity of the internet. As the tendency to publicize even the most trivial- yet entertaining- events has increased, so has the accepted level of ridiculousness. It was once that people could quickly identify such obvious satire from genuine news. That case is no longer. The craziest things are revealed online and startlingly often they turn up as true.

Douche maker sues O’Reilly and Beck? Not quite. But it sounded fun.

Swanson Interview

Q. How much do you know about Glenn Beck and the situation with The White House and Fox News?

A: I have been reading the stories about it and so I am aware The White House is a little miffed at Fox News… But at the same time I understand Obama did not appear on the Fox Sunday show when he appeared on all the others. Ok I understand that too, and he has the right to pick and choose where he wants to go. If he feels like going on a particular program or on a particular network is going to get his message out of focus he sure has the right not to go there. He does risk then putting himself in a position where it looks like he’s favoring some media over others so it is a risky position to take.

Q: So is he good for journalism? Is he good for America?

A: He’s good for entertainment, but I don’t think he’s good for journalism and I don’t think he’s good for America. And for that matter, I think the people on the liberal side who do the same kinds of things are not good. So um, I think there are people like this on both sides of the political aisle.

Q: How about what he does for the Republican Party?

A: O I think he’s great for the Republican Party. He gets ‘em talking. He may even get them you know mad at themselves over what they believe and not believe. I think he’s great for the Republican party ya.

Q: How do you feel about The White House actually coming out on the air and saying, making comments, and..

A: I think The White House should not have made the statement it did being critical of Fox News. I just don’t think they should do that.

Q: What statement was that? Anita Dunn saying it was an arm of the Republican Party?

A: Yes, an arm. That’s the word, an arm of the Republican party. I don’t think that was a wise thing to do.

Q: Do you have any concerns over that? I mean as a journalist, does that concern you that they’re using potentially tax-payers dollars to go after Fox News in particular?

A: I think it just bothers me that they’ve got enough things they need to deal with right now without creating a false issue. This is a false issue. It doesn’t get us down the road towards health care or resolving the situation in Afghanistan or the economy or any of that. It’s a distraction and a diversion and they should not ought to be doing that… Instead of having this discussion of the issues we have this bct-tct-tukt-tckt-tckt everybody trying to get their best zinger in and I think The White House just needs to stay out of that completely and not label the media as good bad or whatever.

Q: Moving on from that, he gets nearly 3 million viewers a night. Why?

A: Because people like to see a building on fire. You know I mean for the same reason people stand around and watch a building on fire. They like to see it. They want to find out what’s going to happen next.

Q: Ok so do you see this feud between The White House and Fox, specifically Glenn Beck, having any serious effects in the future for journalism?

A: Ya, it could derail Obama’s agenda, it really could… And you know Obama is a worldly guy. He should understand that media in other parts of the world are far more biased than Fox News… So, I think this is much ado about nothing. When you really compare this in the grand scheme of the worlds’ media Fox is not nearly as biased as media are in other countries.

Q: My next point would be that he is saying that with The White House engaging this and trying to tell everyone not to follow Fox News and everything, he’s starting to make the point that they’re, this is becoming a threat to our freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Do you see, do you agree?

A: Nope. Nope. It’s because we have freedom of speech we have people like Glenn Beck. So that’s what free speech is all about and so let Glenn Beck rant and you know, I’ll be the first to say it’s not good, it’s not helping our democracy, but he has the right to say it. I totally agree with Glenn Beck’s right to be an idiot on the air. As much as he wants to. I don’t think he’s hurting anybody.

Q: So where do you think this could lead mainstream media? I mean do you see any lasting effects?

A: O I think we’re already going down a real bad road where the media are increasingly editorializing and I think this is just going to make it worse. The new incarnation of headline news, I just absolutely cannot stand it because it’s not really news anymore. It’s a little bit of news and then we hear from, you know, Mary Wilson in Cincinnati, what did you think about that last story, you know, and they have Mary Wilson on there. Like I give shit, you know. Like I give a shit. Just tell me the news. Don’t tell me what all these people think about the news. I’ll go out in the hallway and ask people if I want to know, but so I think we’ve come to the point now where news and opinion are all being mixed in there together and I think that’s really dangerous for all of us. It’s dangerous for CNN. It’s dangerous for Fox. We just shouldn’t do it.

Q: Ya. So do you think that Glenn Beck crosses a line? Is it either him being on Fox News or his program, because he does openly admit that he is not a journalist and that it is entertainment. Do you have a problem with him being on Fox News? Or is it the way that he formats his television show or?

A: I have problem with the concept of an entertainment program masquerading as news. Because I think that we’re reaching a point now where people, viewers, can’t tell the difference. And as soon as viewers can’t tell the difference then we as an industry, journalism, we have lost something. We have lost the ability to go to people with objective, balanced information and have them believe us because they’ll start thinking everything is opinion. And so, that is a problem.

Q: So should news outlets, Fox and CNN, should they do more to clearly differentiate the difference? I mean how do you go about doing that?

A: Ya, that’s an interesting question because it’s the controversy, it’s the theatrics, it’s the entertainment that draws the eyeballs to the programming and if they were to suddenly reel back and become like BBC or PBS, you know, the public looks at BBC and PBS and they go God that’s boring. Who wants to watch that? That’s a talking head and so nobody wants to watch that. We want to watch the exciting stuff. But, then something has been lost so I don’t know the answer to that one.

The first came right after he denounced Palin-Beck as ridiculous. “I was just thinking, what, I’m going to take a back seat to a chick?”  This comment has eluded internet popularity, but his others did not.

The most criticized comment of his radio show last week came when he said, “No, no I’m just saying — Beck-Palin, I’ll consider. But Palin-Beck — can you imagine, can you imagine what an administration with the two of us would be like? What? Come on! She’d be yapping or something, and I’d say, “I’m sorry, why am I hearing your voice? I’m not in the kitchen.”

Such a sexist remark was sure to cause a firestorm of criticism, and it came. I should add that his co-host followed that up with, “You’d you have to live up to evil conservative stereotypes, you’d have no choice but to do so.” In context it’s pretty clear Beck and his cronies were kidding, but many have responded that these jokes may have crossed the line for Beck. Why he would kid like that and what could be revealed by it have now come under debate. ThinkProgress’ Alex Seitz-Wald wrote, “Apparently, being a vice presidential running mate behind a woman is a serious challenge to Beck’s manhood.”

Also, we know Palin can be incredibly sensitive to sexism. She demonstrated this with her response to Newsweek’s cover picture of her in running shorts. How is she going to react to this one? Gawker’s Azaria Jagger is, “going to call a 50-50 split on whether she flies into attack mode or sits back, arches an eyebrow, and quietly snubs him, instead”. It seems she’ll have a tough decision to make. She’s made it obvious she doesn’t want to distance herself too far from Beck, yet she also risks appearing passive on an issue she has previously taken very seriously.

This also highlights an interesting dilemma Beck will come to face more often. Up to now Beck has been able to support several somewhat distinct characters. He had one reserved for his writing, one reserved for his Fox show, and one for his radio listeners. As his visibility increases people will start to see some discrepancies. Steve Krakauer notes, “there’s a difference between Radio Glenn Beck and TV Glenn Beck”. How he handles this precarious balance will be a challenge worth watching.

The blogosphere and everyone else soon wanted to know how Beck felt about the proposition. But before he got a chance to respond, Gretchen Carlson asked Palin about it again on Fox & Friends: “Chances you’ll run on a ticket with Fox’s own Glenn Beck, as was reported earlier this week?” Palin again wouldn’t reject the notion and instead said ‘we’ll see’. At this point there is no reason to agitate her conservative fan base by eliminating Beck as a potential.

Beck responded quickly on his radio show last Thursday. He was fast to “absolutely” rule out being her vice president, though he did say he would consider Beck-Palin. He also made some remarks that went viral in a hurry.

The first comment he interjected halfway through the audio clip when Palin said,”I got a kick out of it, and he probably thought that was just a hoot too to hear such a thing.” Beck interrupted the clip to make the point (humorously I should say), “I don’t think things are hoots. I don’t. I don’t think it’s a hoot. I would never use the word hoot, and I respectfully ask that every time my name is brought up she would stop using the word ‘hoot.’” The segment is quite hilarious because Palin has repeatedly used the word in association with Beck. My guess is Beck feels that word epitomizes the ditsy aura of Palin. It’s a trademark he wants to avoid, and he obviously doesn’t like it when people say he thinks of things as ‘hoot’s.  The rest of the discussion about a potential Palin-Beck ticket was also funny. He goes on to make other remarks that many people will have some spicy things to say about. I’ll talk about those in my next post.

The episode of South Park was definitely the most humorous parody of Beck I have seen. I liked that it was done comically and not in a vicious voice. So often when people are making fun of Beck they simply seem to be attacking him.

The story starts when Cartman lands himself a job reading his elementary school’s morning announcements. He soon goes off that the school has become a socialist regime and is nothing like the good old days. Most problems are blamed on the student body president. She quickly becomes the subject of ridicule by Cartman-following-classmates who are, “just asking questions.”

They again spoof Beck’s tagline of “just asking” when Cartman asks if the school money is going to buy heroin: “Is Wendy using your lunch money to buy heroin? Probably not. But how can we know? I don’t want my lunch money going  to drugs. Who’s taking these drugs? What would be the point? I’m asking questions!”

Cartman goes on to transition the morning announcements from the loudspeaker to TV monitors installed in classrooms. Next he’s using a chalk board to draw out his theories to students. Having watched too much Glenn Beck recently, this was surprisingly quite hilarious. Beck’s show is intense, and South Park did a great job finding the humor in it without being cruel.

How his classmates amuse themselves while Cartman is ranting represents the American majority of a non-interested attitude. Most kids quickly space out and stop listening. Butters is the only student who shows any attention and he is always Cartman’s sidekick anyway.

Overall the show was a great way to poke fun at Beck without getting nasty. The producers get a little extra knock on Beck at the end. Cartman eventually becomes student body president and is forbidden to read the announcements. His first day off the job, a letter is read complaining about how terrible the student body president is. Eat that Cartman.

My tactic is simple. Take it for what it is. Beck fills us with fear to show us what could happen and to keep us tuned in. He says it IS going to happen. You don’t have to believe him. Here is where many people get lost. They don’t see Beck’s words as speculation or dare I call it brainstorming, but as fact. However true  Beck or anyone else thinks it may be is irrelevant to me. I look past that. I don’t let my thoughts be restricted to his either or fallacies.  I take his words as a possibility. I ponder what it would take to for his predictions to become a reality. I question whether I see the indicators he sees. I doubt their reliability. I test their accuracy. I wonder what I would do if his prediction came true. All of this is done independently from outside influence. I’m not trying to say I’m omniscient and immune to the forces that be. What I’m saying is I am able to take Beck’s fear mongering out of the context he sets it in to see how it fits into my own worldview. I absorb the insight he has provided, edit my own opinions accordingly (or not, if no change is necessary), and move forward. This could not have been accomplished without a slice of fear mongering.

The process of fear mongering represents an inimitable framework of thinking. One cannot explore an idea comprehensively without it. That is what I like about Beck’s fear mongering. I like the style of thinking and analysis it forces me into. There is no way to evaluate situations the way Beck does without throwing in some fear. I will say he often adds much more fear than necessary. His reason for that is most likely to sustain his ratings and therefore his nice paycheck. But most notably I want to say it is a shame so many people miss out on this opportunity of thought. As naysayers and opponents ignore Beck’s ideas they refuse an opportunity to better themselves. They don’t travel through the thought process. They don’t get to re-evaluate and reconfirm their opinions. They only sit and criticize. The open minded individual, supporter or nemesis, gets to grow and evolve. Love him or hate him, don’t let your own stubbornness stop you from growth. Because even if you feel exactly the same as when you started, at least you’re twice as sure Beck is an idiot.

Glenn Beck does fear monger. He uses fear to engage his viewers. The topic of my past several posts is what I like about Beck’s show, so I’ll take this analysis in that direction.

I like Beck’s fear mongering for the same reason I like anything else about him. He presents situations and issues in ways no one else does. It allows me to see something through a totally unique lens. I am then able to evaluate my opinion of the subject after having seen it in a different light. No harm there. Before I continue  I want to emphasize that my position is one of optimism. Undoubtedly there are negative effects of what Beck does. The internet abounds with explanations, evaluations, and analysis of the evils of Beck, his followers, his sponsors, and everything else associated with him. I want to try and find what good can be derived from his unavoidable presence and influence.

I said I like Beck’s fear mongering. Reader beware I say that carefully and with many conditions.

The first is that Beck’s show is not for everyone. Many people’s bias and own personal beliefs run too thick in their minds to allow Beck’s show to be beneficial to them. Their opinions blind them to new sources of light which may uncover something new. To these folks Beck’s fear mongering is just that. It is cut and dry. This category of nonusers includes people from all political parties, ages, sexes, backgrounds, etc.

The second warning is to all-out supporters of Beck. These viewers get too caught up in the entertainment aspect of Beck’s show. They come to believe everything he says is unarguably fact and that the connections he draws are actually present not just hypothetical or situational tools used to make a larger point. This group reflects poorly on Beck’s method of fear mongering simply by falling for it. All of a sudden they think that so-and-so is aggressively trying to do this-and-that. Their over-zealousness hinders their ability to see Beck’s hyperbole. This lends them to be titled followers of Beck and emphasizes the bit of fear mongering he uses.

So how do I take something good from Beck’s fear mongering? Check out my next post.

The video itself is similar to the rest of his show . It is a mosaic of narrative from Beck, audio and video of others, and connect the dot theory formulation. In the end the viewer is left grasping their chair worried the world is about to end yet not quite sure what to do about it. Let’s see how this is working.

The team behind Beck’s show has as usual obviously done their homework. Each phrase is effectual and each word chosen with precision. He has audio or video of his subjects as evidence to assure the viewer his claims aren’t fabricated.   The connections he draws are presented as tightly knit relationships. He handles quotes as he’s see fit, sometimes drawing inferences that may not be what the speaker intended but surely support what he’s saying. All of this is done with such detail and craft the video clip is extremely potent. It’s so well done it makes you believe.

For the most part this is working in Beck’s favor. He’s got his audience hooked. The only downside of such dense material is the overwhelming effect. Only a fleeting moment is available to digest the chunk before Beck moves on. This may be deliberate. I’ve noticed the most lasting impact of such clips is threefold. (I should say these come from an open minded viewer. Others may find different effects.) The first is a feeling of fear. The second is a feeling of uncertainty. The third is just a bad taste about each name that was dropped. Combine these three and the combination is volatile. You’re scared, unsure, and have someone to point your finger at for it. Sounds like it’s time to fight or take flight. Beck knows his viewers aren’t going to take flight because that’s not what Americans do. We fight. And now we know who to fight: the people Beck just talked about, whoever they are!

This reaction may be just what Beck had in mind. Some people would call it simply fear mongering. Some of it may be, but I’ll explain exactly how I feel about it in my next post.