Now on ScienceBlogs: Great Plains Emerging Diseases Conference
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
« Canadian Author Roughed Up at Border | Main | Taitz Screws Up Another Case »
Posted on: December 19, 2009 9:16 AM, by Ed Brayton
If you didn't see this brilliant takedown of Glenn Beck on the Daily Show, you have to see it. Beck has a clear conflict of interest here, being a paid spokesman for a company that makes money when the price of gold goes up while simultaneously telling his listeners to buy gold. And as is often the case, comedy tells the story far better than a media article could.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Beck - Not So Mellow Gold | ||||
| ||||
Politics
Comments
He's such a transparent circus show. P.T. Barnum eat your heart out, I guess! Beck could care less if he brings down the entire dang all of hunanity/milky way galaxy/entire freakin universe. He just doesn't give a hoot. He's ridin' that pony for all it's worth...
Posted by: 386sx | December 19, 2009 9:42 AM
Being that Bush was in office last autumn, Glen Becks' scare mongering, sounds like an anti Bush campaign commercial.
Posted by: gski | December 19, 2009 9:43 AM
Aside from everything else, what does this tell us about the fascist news channel? They don't even have the ethical responsibility to inform their audiences that fuckface Beck has a conflict of interest in promoting gold. One can be assured that if Keith Olbermann at MSNBC had such a conflict of interest, the fascist news channel would be all over the story.
Posted by: SLC | December 19, 2009 9:45 AM
I still think Beck is a knowing shill, not a crazy person.
But that just makes THIS particular thing worse..
Posted by: Rutee | December 19, 2009 9:45 AM
I still think Beck is a knowing shill...
That's the word I was looking for. Shill. Perfecto...
Posted by: 386sx | December 19, 2009 9:49 AM
Rutee:
Those two things are not mutually exclusive.Posted by: Chris Caprette | December 19, 2009 10:29 AM
After praying on it, I've concluded that Glenn Beck is the most transparent snake oil hustler of the past decade.
Not to mention an asshole of Biblical proportions.
Posted by: CHV | December 19, 2009 10:31 AM
This whole issue reminds me of Ben Stein's dismissal from the New York Times. I believe their policy prohibits writers from advertising. Period. Since Fox News is an entertainment organization rather than a news organization, it makes sense that they would not have similarly strict policies.
Posted by: barry21 | December 19, 2009 10:55 AM
As someone once said of another, slightly less villanous character, some people just want to watch the world burn.
Posted by: xebecs | December 19, 2009 11:01 AM
Rutee @ 4:
Shill? Yes.
Knowing? I would argue Mr. Beck's aware of the scam and his participation. However, I would also argue that where Beck thinks he crosses the line between arguments based on reality and the land of delusion is well beyond where delusion actually kicked-in. Beck is a classic example of someone in on a shtick who doesn't know what he doesn't know. This group is becoming legion where Beck is joined by Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Sean Hannity, George Will, Thomas Sowell, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly and dozens of others.
The latter four are even more ironic observations because they're even more deluded than Beck in terms of not realizing where they are employing a form of crazy. I'm not claiming that Limbaugh and O'Reilly make crazier claims than Beck, they do not; I am claiming they're less aware they've crossed a line between reality and delusion than Beck. I find their delusion more insidious because it's harder to detect by people who only casually review current events and therefore more dangerous in polluting the public square. Exhibit A would be Will and Limbaugh's treatment of climate change. For O'Reilly and Sowell Exhibit B would be their seeming ignorance regarding what stories they emphasize relative to the importance of all events and their inability to properly put stories into context.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 19, 2009 11:01 AM
Dude, Beck's an uneducated turd. He's nothing but an insane troglodyte who needs psychological help .
Posted by: Katharine | December 19, 2009 11:31 AM
Despicable cretin.
Posted by: Mikey | December 19, 2009 11:47 AM
Weirdly, I can speak to this, having worked for a large precious metals company. Most companies make their money on premiums - whether you buy or sell they get a bit of money, typically a fixed amount (ie $4 per ounce of gold). Technically, it only matters that they have a large number of transactions, not that they sell a lot.
Mind you, our main analyst was always attacked by gold bugs for telling people to be cautious about metals and to not expect the prices to keep rising.
Posted by: Sivi | December 19, 2009 1:04 PM
The scary thing is that there are literally millions of people who believe every word Beck says, they base their political stances on his arguments, and believe that he is a "good man," and, as one of my students put it, "a good Mormon." That's what makes psychos like Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. so dangerous is that they are making money by manipulating the political, social, and economic sectors of our society and passing it off as news. The people who watch them and listen to their shows don't seem to have the cognitive skills necessary to pick up on their conflicts of interest.
I also agree with Michael that, to one degree or another, many of them have actually bought into their own stories. People generally don't like to be the bad guy, they don't want to be the snake oil salesman, makes 'em feel bad, so they begin to believe their own stories.
The scariest thing about this specific one is that his lies are directly counter to the reality. Inflation isn't high, it's actually surprisingly low, 1.8% for the year, only .2% higher than it was during the "economic growth" period of 2002-2003. For the entire decade inflation has averaged sub 4%, hovering around 2.5% to 3.5% for most of that time.
These guys have an incredible conflict of interest that goes way beyond the gold hawking issue. If the Democrats are successful, it hurts them, if the Republicans are unsuccessful, it helps them. They literally have financial goals tied to the country teetering on the brink of economic, social, and political collapse.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 19, 2009 1:22 PM
As much as I despise Beck, is there any reason at all to believe he was paid anything more than a fee for doing their commercial? I can't make see the logical leap. Sorry.
Posted by: Troy | December 19, 2009 1:52 PM
Troy,
When even conservative blogs are asking "has Beck lost his integrity?" [implying he ever had any] you have to wonder. If the folks who drank the kool-aid years ago are asking questions...
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 19, 2009 2:00 PM
@15
Okay so Mr. Smith is paid to promote the Asteroid Insurance League in those wacky commercials where the old lady is vaporized playing canasta. Still, I fail to see how Mr. Smith's nightly television broadcasts playing-up the possibility of an impending asteroid impact has any bearing on anything we're discussing here.
Sorry.
Posted by: Pareidolius | December 19, 2009 2:05 PM
It's like watching a train full of clowns crash. What's the potential that gold will fall shortly leaving alot of people badly stung?
Colbert done a segment that had a few others flogging gold aswell.
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | December 19, 2009 2:33 PM
I wonder if this could be used to invoke the laws on commodities manipulation.
Eh; not politically viable, regardless.
Posted by: abb3w | December 19, 2009 2:35 PM
Not likely unless there is a single major holder of gold who opts to sell for some reason, flooding the market. Given the state of the economy though, odds are good that gold prices will continue to climb. That's one of the annoying things about people in the economy. When things are going well and you want people to save, they tend to spend, when things are going poorly and you want people to buy, they tend to save. Stockpiling gold is part of that "hoarding nuts for the winter" tendency.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 19, 2009 2:43 PM
Goldline: "The price of gold is very high right now! We're eager to sell gold. Don't you think this is a good time for you to buy gold?"
Uh, no, it sounds like a lousy time to buy. Unless like, say, housing prices, the price of gold is guaranteed to rise forever?
Posted by: Scott Hanley | December 19, 2009 2:57 PM
Up here in Canada we have a major gold investor, who has a history of calling things right, having much of his gold made into coins so that they are "easy for ordinary people to buy".
When the guys who usually hit are selling, it's like your shoe-shine boy giving you stock tips: It means it's time to get out of the market.
Posted by: Rick Pikul | December 19, 2009 3:26 PM
With a crashing market for just about everything, housing prices down 30%, a serious problem with everyone saving money and consumers not spending.... this will cause runaway inflation in what way?
Perhaps someone who honestly believes this would like to buy this huge stamp collection I inherited.
Posted by: Freedem | December 19, 2009 3:43 PM
At what point would the fee become something of concern?
I don't know what these guys make per commercial. They appear to live quite well so I would assume their margins are pretty damn good.
Posted by: Owen | December 19, 2009 3:54 PM
Catching up on The Daily Show today, this is appropriate.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/115460/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-tue-dec-15-2009#s-p1-so-i0
Posted by: Owen | December 19, 2009 4:11 PM
I just want to know why it is only the comedy shows that are engaged in anything even resembling investigative journalism these days.
Posted by: ckitching | December 19, 2009 5:06 PM
ckitching, because it's easier to be funny if you know what you're talking about.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 19, 2009 6:10 PM
ole Glenn Beck. I can't watch him without having a good chuckle. Seriously, this guy deserves an Oscar.
Posted by: tripencrypt | December 19, 2009 8:30 PM
Well, *simper* correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just a little woman after all, Glenn, but -
if gold is going up, doesn't that mean that you shouldn't buy it???
I mean, doesn't it? :-D
Posted by: Kristine | December 19, 2009 9:38 PM
Once upon a time there was a shock jock (well two actually, {let's call them John and Alan}, but let's focus on John to keep this simple).
This 'John the shock jock' liked to broadcast little vitriolic tirades about evil and greedy banks. Inciting folks to ring in an share their anecdotes about 'friends-of-friends cousin's dog-walker's brother-in-law's' run in the bank, and how nasty and mean the bank was to them. Then John would finish with a flourish saying; "you see, proof of how nasty those evil greedy banks are. Irrefutable data".
Then one day he opened his program with the words: "Banks, they aren't all that bad...", as a lead in to how necessary banks are, how useful, what nice men and women toil away selflessly totally for their customer's benefit, and so on ad nauseum. A paean to those wonderful banks. Then surprise, surprise! Who should ring up but the top Marketing Manager of one of the largest banking corporations. Didn't they have a nice cozy chat!
For weeks this went on. John praising the banks whenever they raised rates on mortgages, slapped on another fee or closed another rural branch.
Then a champion appeared in the form of a TV show designed to criticise the media (on a government owned station naturally*). They started to ask awkward questions. Why had John's attitude suddenly turned 180 degrees? Was this change in attitude anything to do with the rumours of the banks paying large fees for John's new-found positive opinions?. Finally, a 'deep throat' in the radio station leaked a number of letters from the bank to John, explaining his job was to: "deflect the negative perception of the banks by presenting a more positive image" and outlining the obscene fee he'd get paid to do it.. The jig was up.
This affair ('Cash For Comment') changed the rules. Now shock jocks have to disclose any commercial interest in their 'musings' on their shows, and clearly delineate advertising from editorial. (they get around both, but it's not as easy as before).
John Stewart you've got your work cut out for you. -DJ
---------------
* Let's say, Media Watch on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 19, 2009 10:12 PM
Posted by: llewelly | December 20, 2009 3:53 AM
tripencrypt - From what I've seen of Mr. Bek's performances, I'm not even sure he deserves an Elmo, let alone an Oscar. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 20, 2009 5:05 AM
I'm inclined to agree that he deserves an Oscar, unless he has no idea that what he says is remotely crazy. He's convinced millions of people that he's serious and trustworthy, right? And he managed to ask for the Daytime Emmy with a straight face.
"Knowing? I would argue Mr. Beck's aware of the scam and his participation. However, I would also argue that where Beck thinks he crosses the line between arguments based on reality and the land of delusion is well beyond where delusion actually kicked-in. Beck is a classic example of someone in on a shtick who doesn't know what he doesn't know. This group is becoming legion where Beck is joined by Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Sean Hannity, George Will, Thomas Sowell, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly and dozens of others. "
...Those people aren't serious? Really? I'm pretty sure Palin is; She's not a complete moron... when it comes to Alaska. That Competence on Alaska sort of tells me that she's a total moron about everything else.
Posted by: Rutee | December 20, 2009 9:23 AM
Ruttee @ 33:
My use of the term serious would describe politicians who:
a) become informed by studying the issue, its history, what experts think,
b) consider the best arguments on all sides of an issue,
c) their position is clearly consistent with history, expert opinion, and cognizant of the best contra arguments with rational rebuttals, and
c) consistently take a principled position in the best interests of the country even when their position is politically unpopular with either their financial and/or voting constituents; they demonstrate leadership rather than being a pandering.
Here's an example showing how deeply unserious Ms. Palin is where she once took an informed position and now makes arguments from ignorance on climate change. It's my opinion that she's always been ignorant on climate change, both columns Mr. Robinson refers to were clearly ghost-written and her advocacy for previously advocating for the mitigation of climate change effects was merely due to it being politically popular with the populists of Alaska while she served as governor. I could present dozens of examples showing Ms. Palin's repeated unwillingness and/or inability to be serious.
Ruttee @ 33:
You have a low bar for not being a moron. I think the following Palin attributes argue strongly for her being a moron:
1) she doesn't understand history at the level of a high-schooler
2) she doesn't understand economics at a high school level
3) she doesn't understand science at least a Jr. High level
4) her writing skills are below a high school level
5) she's unable to make coherent arguments, let alone cogent arguments.
6) she's a serial liar, who often tells outrageous lies that can be easily validated as lies.
I find her rationalizations for her positions are:
a) transparently dishonest,
b) supported only by falsified or questionable talking points where she demonstrates no evidence she even understands what she's talking about if questioned to delve deeper than her talking points,
c) she can't even speak in complete sentences, and
d) her arguments are frequently contradictory to previous arguments she made or even the argument she's currently making.
Exhibit A would be her press conference when she announced she was quitting as governor and provided a totally incoherent argument justifying her decision; the same is also a monumental example of her being far from serious as well.
Not only do I find her to be a moron, I'm hard-pressed to find many people in politics who are bigger morons. This would include people at the city and township level I deal with locally.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 20, 2009 10:07 AM
See, the discrepancy here is, I think she could be smart, if she weren't polluted by bad ideology. The Republican Party obviously did not vet her, but they didn't choose her knowing she was that stupid; THe only information they really had on her was her was debates.. on Alaska. Which she cares deeply about, and did actually well in.
Then again, I'm probably wrong. She's probably an idiot savant, not someone who could be well educated and well informed, but because she's a Real True Christian is born with a sense of certainty and absolute confidence regarding topics she hasn't actually put the work in that people simply must to be informed.
Posted by: Rutee | December 20, 2009 11:13 AM
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't address the other parts. She's certainly not serious by your metric, since you're using the term to denote effort spent learning about, well, the burdens of governance, not sincerity. Or at least, isn't serious now.
But, uh, even if she had the op ed ghostwritten (What's the grammar on that. If 'I am Palin', is it 'I having this ghost written', or 'I will ghost write this'?), she still took actions in accordance with it, including having at-risk towns identified and relocation plans drawn up. Doesn't that say something on the efforts she was making?
Posted by: Rutee | December 20, 2009 11:26 AM
MH:
No matter how far down you put that bar, she will manage to limbo under it, even if she has to dig a hole.The characteristics you outline describe extreme mental laziness and possibly a belief that success is possible by appealing only to those who are similarly lazy. The extent to which this sufficient to be classified as a moron is debatable. What I find deeply disturbing is that if she is indeed a moron, then a ridiculously disproportionate segment of our press is enchanted by profound stupidity and she will accumulate obscene wealth because of that. Consequently, a moron will obtain the means to exert her influence over our government and, to put a very selfish point on it, my life.
Posted by: Chris Caprette | December 20, 2009 12:34 PM
Rutee @ 36:
If Ms. Palin was strongly anti-AGW prior to being governor, saw the problems and mitigated them in opposition to her party's position or popular opinion, than that would be evidence of seriousness. But that's not what happened. Her Administration did exactly what everyone expected of the state government given the obvious problems (towns flooding). There were no barriers to carrying out her obvious duties.
What does prove she's not serious and is a moron is that she's now taking positions contra to what she did as governer, going from an informed position on AGW based not just on abstract theory, but physical harm to her citizens, to a new position acting as if none of that happened and she's a denialist in order conjoin her new positions with the one of denialists who represent the lower 48 conservatives.
Eugene Robinson's column provides a perfect example of Ms. Palin's unseriousness.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 20, 2009 12:42 PM
Gold!! worth about 11% less than it was two weeks ago!! Whats that Beck Boy currently claiming?
(The timing of my share selling was strictly luck)
Posted by: Sold my shares already | December 21, 2009 2:56 PM
2nd best takedown of Glen Beck this year! (it's pretty hard to top South Park when they want to take down anything)
Posted by: Kel | December 27, 2009 4:56 PM