Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Huff Post: New TIME Cover on Glenn Beck Ignores Facts, and Worse

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:33 PM
Original message
Huff Post: New TIME Cover on Glenn Beck Ignores Facts, and Worse
Huff Post: New TIME Cover on Glenn Beck Ignores Facts, and Worse

I have no quarrel with TIME magazine devoting a cover to Glenn Beck -- so long as the accompanying story sticks to hard facts and harsh truths. The issue coming tomorrow, online today, sadly fails to do so in an apparent effort to woo the rightwing with a ludicrously "balanced" treatment of equally dangerous and wacko "ranting" coming from left and right.

It starts right away with a first paragraph that claims that only "liberal sources" estimated the protest crowd in D.C. last weekend as about 70,000, while conservatives say up to a million or more. Actually, virtually all mainstream media sources, along with nonpartisan factchecking organizations such as PolitiFact, cite the lower number.



Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/time-cover-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. And I heard it pointed out
that there was another event going on at the mall on 9/13. If that's true, we've never heard how many people were actually attending that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
2. The last time I bought TIme Magazine
Jonestown was on the cover and it was not an anniversary issue.
Who reads that rubbish these days.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikeytherat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. Time is for those who find Newsweak too "thinky"
mikey_the_rat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
26. Which is in turn for those who find the New Yorker too "thinky".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. K&R that article is disgusting. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
4. K&R big #5 for, yip, the story is a recitation of his financial statistics, how many
radio stations, how many #1 best sellers, $23 million he ingested last year, plans for books to come targetting all age groups...

The only personal tidbit was that his mother gave him a golden-age-of-broadcasting recording and committed suicide. It stands those two factoids next to each other, leaving the possibility open to be drawn that the former was causal of the latter, perhaps from a realization of what she had unleashed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. does it talk about how many advertisers
he's lost recently?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. Nope, nup, nip!1 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
5. Didn't they do a drooling cover story on Andy Coulter last year?
Time is the glossiest of the Repuke propaganda sheets
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rude Dog Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. "Andy Coulter"?
Well, that's real nice. Sexism with just a subtle hint of transphobia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Your concern is noted
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rude Dog Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. How cute.
"Someone said something I don't like! URRRGH CONCURN TROEL HURRRRRR!"

I just love it when people can't come up with an explanation for their garbage, so they have to resort to pathetic ad homs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. Still craving your approval
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 06:40 PM by Doctor_J
Coulter is not gay, nor is she a Tran. Wingers consider her hot. I think she is homely and androgenous, with her bony shape and Adam's Apple. I am sorry if me commenting on the appearance of one of the most fiercely anti-American media darlings offends you. Please add me to your ignore list.

BTW, I also often refer to Limpballs as an "obese pedophile". you probably will find that offensive too, as it insults obese people and pedophiles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. I always find comments like this silly
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 01:19 PM by Chulanowa
Sexism and transphobia are applied to broad groups in entirity.

Being dubious of Ann Coulter's claim to be a woman is simply ad hominem against Ann Coulter, not all women, or even transgendered people. It's personal, in other words.

Plus there's the simple irony of rushing to defend one of the right's most prolific sexists and homophobes, by accusing people of being sexist and homophobic towards her.

Now, I'm not defending calling her a man - I think it's silly too. I mean really, when you have such useful invectives as "Stupid crazy asshole" , calling her a man just seems... Lame. But getting up in arms over people doing so is silly, too.

And on edit... the fact you just called someone a sexist homophobe, and then complained about ad hominems in your next post... You need to make up your mind. Which is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. apply this test to it
"Being dubious of Ann Coulter's claim to be a woman is simply ad hominem against Ann Coulter, not all women, or even transgendered people. It's personal, in other words. "

would calling her "Andy Coulter" be appropriate and defended as such here, if her politics were leftwing?\

if you can answer yes, then the comment is inappropriate. since it's transphobia justified merely because the target is a rightwing (lunatic) woman.

you can ask similar questions about jokes regarding condi rice , colin powell, etc. and race and... well, fill in the blanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. .
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 01:45 PM by Chulanowa
dupe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. You're really trying hard to miss my point, aren't you?
Such as the point I made that I'm not defending calling her "Andy Coulter" - I think it's silly and ineffectual.

Or the point that it's applied to her individually, due to distaste towards her, and not whatever groups she may fall into as a whole.

And what kind of argument are you making, anyway? "If calling her Andy Coulter would be appropriate, then it's inappropriate" - that just doesn't make sense.

Can't you go start a thread about Olive Garden or pit bulls or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. and you are trying hard to evade my point
is it acceptable to refer to women with male names because they might have some superficial appearance of masculinity?

i would say no.

is that question's answer modified if a woman in question happens to be a rightwing lunatic?

i would say no.

it's really that simple.

you can evade it all you want, but it's a matter of principle

call her a lunatic, a ridiculous over the top dishonest polemicist

that's gr00vy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Calling anyone anything is unacceptable, really
You might note that there are more than a few crazy women over on the GOP who, well, don't exactly fit the standard for feminine appearance. Oddly enough, i've never seen anyone use this as a basis of insult towards them. It's pretty much just Ann Coulter that gets it. When's the last time you saw it tossed at Katharine Harris, for example?

So like i'm saying. it's purely personal towards Ann Coulter. Now, you may wonder why.

Because Ann chose a role for herself. You see, Ann Coulter's entire gig started out as being the "woman outraged by Clinton". She progressed towards being a blonde fucktoy for the stooges on the GOP to salivate over. The role she picked for her operation was "Wingnut with tits" and she has, on frequent occasion, hidden behind hte "sexism" shield to deflect legitimate criticism.

Essentially, she uses her uterus as a political weapon.

Since she has chosen to make herself a caricature of "woman" - while expressing more misogyny than a drunken Bobby Brown most of the time - it is fitting if not appropriate, to mock her utter lack of any sort of feminine quality.

Myself, I feel absolutely no reason to be remotely polite to some wig-wearing bitch who's advocated killing me. So, if you're still offended... Meh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. two points
1) i never said you had to be polite. i said that making such gender based slams based on her perceived masculine attributes is wrong. calling her a fucking full of shit piece of human refuse would be perfectly acceptble. grok the difference

2) i'm not "still offended" because i never was. i simply think it's wrong and it belittles the person who makes the comment about her.

if somebody accused me of being "gay" because of my fashion sense, i wouldn't be offended. but it would be wrong of them to make such a claim based on the fact that i wear certain clothes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
6. Let's see here? Coulter? Check! Limbaugh? Check! Glenn Beck? Check
Time is a piece of trash not worthy of the trees used to produce it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
18. There was a day when Time Magazine was a news source.
Shouldn't they verify the crowd numbers themselves?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. "INVESTIGATIVE" and "JOURNALISM" are two words that Time will never put together.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. we are living....
during a time of the "he said, she said" era of journalism.....there are not many who actually check the damn facts for themselves!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
19. Pretty wimpy article, but it did have this little nugget of self-immolation.
The inevitable question is, How much of this industry is sincere? Last year, shortly after the election, Beck spoke with TIME's Kate Pickert, and he didn't sound very scared back then. Of Obama's early personnel decisions, he said, "I think so far he's chosen wisely." Of his feelings about the President: "I am not an Obama fan, but I am a fan of our country ... He is my President, and we must have him succeed. If he fails, we all fail." Of the Democratic Party: "I don't know personally a single Democrat who is a dope-smoking hippie that wants to turn us into Soviet Russia." Of the civic duty to trust: "We've got to pull together, because we are facing dark, dark times. I don't trust a single weasel in Washington. I don't care what party they're from. But unless we trust each other, we're not going to make it."


Black and white proof that the clown is a pandering hypocrite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
21. You mean they still print Time magazine?
I have not seen or read it in years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. ha...we get TIME for Kids at our grade school, and they both have about the
same number of pages

it's not long for this world, I'd say, like most of print 'journalism'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
28. According to liberals, 2+2 is 4. But Conservatives put it at 12.
Edited on Fri Sep-18-09 05:31 PM by SemiCharmedQuark
Both sides make good points.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 23rd 2014, 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC