White House Blog vs. Glen Beck & Fox

[PeasantChick503]

What do we think of this one, Tankers?

www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Reality-Check-T ... -of-Shame/

Obama’s official White House Blog took on Fox News and singled out Glen Beck, calling them liars and accusing of them of seeking ratings above facts.

The post ends with

For even more Fox lies, check out the latest "Truth-O-Meter" feature from Politifact that debunks a false claim about a White House staffer that continues to be repeated by Glenn Beck and others on the network.

This is a big change in pace for the Obama administration. No more pussy footing around, eh Barry?

[Seven Words]

disclaimer..I am in no way insinuating, saying, or implying that the Democratic party, or its supporters, are bastions of integrity, nor paragons of honesty. They're in politics. OF COURSE they lie and misrepresent things. But the degree of dishonesty varies from individual to individual.

But Glen Beck is a whole new level. His show is so replete with demonstrably false statements, I cannot conceive of him being unaware of it. He clearly (to me, at least) is a genuine advocate of "the end justifies the means". He truly applies the concept of "The Big Lie" every single day, and I find him highly offensive.

another disclaimer----I am not implying, insinuating, nor saying that Glen Beck is a leader of the Republican party (or conservativism in America), nor is he representative of those. He is affiliated with them, nothing further.

[Zarathustra]

There is nothing wrong with fact checking, per se. But I wonder about the role of the administration performing this task. For our government to attack the media, and to single out the opinions of individual commentators, seems a bit overreaching and, frankly, petty. Why is the President so worried about what Fox News says about him? Why so defensive? It seems beneath the dignity of the office to allocate resources to such a self-serving endeavor.

Do they fact check all networks? Or just Fox? Is tax payer money going to pay for this activity?

If Fox is wrong, they should be held accountable by their peers in the media. We don't need the federal government to tell us how to view the news coverage of the federal government.

[Orlion]

As a footnote to your excellent comment, Malik23, I'd like to say that I think the White House should be able to answer accusations made against it. Showing false statements for what they are should be more than enough to discredit any entity that presents them as fact, and as a result, singling anyone out for making them is, as Malik23 pointed out, beneath the dignity of the Office.

[ParanoiA]

disclaimer..I am in no way insinuating, saying, or implying that the Democratic party, or its supporters, are bastions of integrity, nor paragons of honesty. They're in politics. OF COURSE they lie and misrepresent things. But the degree of dishonesty varies from individual to individual.

But Glen Beck is a whole new level. His show is so replete with demonstrably false statements, I cannot conceive of him being unaware of it. He clearly (to me, at least) is a genuine advocate of "the end justifies the means". He truly applies the concept of "The Big Lie" every single day, and I find him highly offensive.

another disclaimer----I am not implying, insinuating, nor saying that Glen Beck is a leader of the Republican party (or conservativism in America), nor is he representative of those. He is affiliated with them, nothing further.

Glen Beck scares the hell out of me. His first two of the 9 principles concerning the 912 project, amazingly sum up the problems with him:

1. America is good.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.

This is straight out of the handbook for blind nationalism. America is good, as a principle? So what if we nuke an island of children? America is good. What if we were to steal Iraq's pipelines and lay waste to the population? America is good. What if we invade Canada to steal their healthcare? America is good.

Sorry, 'America is good' is not a principle, it's sick.

Number 2 should be self explanatory. Believe if you want, but promoting unsubstantiated belief systems should not be a principle.

This kind of thinking is dangerous. Extremely dangerous. And I've noticed that every conservative christian that I know, loves him.

[PeasantChick503]

Why is the President so worried about what Fox News says about him?

This administration recognizes the importance of a well informed public, and they know how much power Fox news, or any major new network, has over what we know. For a lot of people, Fox news is the only voice they hear. They trust the network to inform them. And why shouldn't they?

Why so defensive?

This post is a clear, muddled answer to the misleading information put out on the Glen Beck show. I'm with Seven Words in thinking that Glen Beck must know that he's popularizing lies. Just because he puts so many of these in the form of a question doesn't mean he's not planting false ideas deliberately.

Do they fact check all networks? Or just Fox? Is tax payer money going to pay for this activity?

Yes. No. Yes.

They do fact check all networks. There are many people in the white house who keep track of what the major news programs are saying. Obama is by no means the first president to have this going on. I'd be frightened if the president of the United States didn't know what the public was hearing everyday.

If Fox is wrong, they should be held accountable by their peers in the media.

While a few other networks have fun pointing out Fox misinformation, it obviously hasn't been enough. Many Americans still believe everything Fox tells them. Perhaps Obama is a bit tired of waiting for the journalism community to hold Fox accountable for what they say. With this blog post he's just trying to keep people from freaking out over things that aren't true.

Eesh. I forgot what I was going to say before I started responding to those quotes.

[Plissken]

Being held accountable by their peers hasn't changed the fact that something like 70% of FOX viewers still think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. (Even after the President at the time changed his tune on that point.)

What has changed is the dialogue. Anyone who dares to question the veracity of claims made either by FOX reporters or their It's Just Entertainment division is simply held up as an example of the Liberal Media Conspiracy What's Holding Bill-o The Clown Down with enough repitition that eventually folks forget the orignal lie for which they were being held accountable.

[Tjol]

What do we think of this one, Tankers?

www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Reality-Check-T ... -of-Shame/

Obama’s official White House Blog took on Fox News and singled out Glen Beck, calling them liars and accusing of them of seeking ratings above facts.

As the current administration and congress have done with anyone who disagrees with them. Everyone who disagrees is lying, but everytime a vote comes up to make liars out of their opponents.... they instead prove them honest. Everyone who disagrees is lying, or racist, or a nazi, but as soon as the maroons realise that they aren't intimidating, but rather emboldening the opposition... they back pedal as Jimmy Carter did recently, Pelosi before him and who knows how many other politicians who cannot tolerate people disagreeing with them.

Being held accountable by their peers hasn't changed the fact that something like 70% of FOX viewers still think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. (Even after the President at the time changed his tune on that point.)

What has changed is the dialogue. Anyone who dares to question the veracity of claims made either by FOX reporters or their It's Just Entertainment division is simply held up as an example of the Liberal Media Conspiracy What's Holding Bill-o The Clown Down with enough repitition that eventually folks forget the orignal lie for which they were being held accountable.

Yeah, Plissken, you've uncovered it all. Right there. People can't disagree with your leader's proposed government programs unless they're insane asylum escapees.

As ineffective as Pelosi, Reid, Gibbs, Frank, Dodd, Obama, Carter, etc. have been with ad hominum attacks, don't let that slow you down from throwing a few more out there. Everyone knows, that that is the best way to change hearts and minds who have reason to disagree with the latest offering of snake oil from our best friends in the government.

p.s. What tv I watch, I get from an old fashioned antenna, so I didn't even need any brainwashing from Fox to come up with that post. Amazing ain't it?

[Plissken]

As I said, what has changed is the dialogue. It's happened in here as well.

[Zarathustra]

Sorry, 'America is good' is not a principle, it's sick.

Well, I think it's a lot better than the other extreme coming out of the President's former spiritual advisor of 20 years: "Goddamn America!"

There is nothing wrong with the idea that America as an institution, as a social experiment, as a country, is good. The fact that we created a place where freedom and democracy and opportunity thrive in a way that humans haven't seen for most of our bloody history is indeed good. What people choose to do with that freedom isn't always good.

Do patriotic songs make you cringe? Do you refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? Do you love your country? How could you love something that you don't think is good? Personally, I think the fact that you believe "America is good" is sick is sick.

Say what you want about Beck, but this guy exposed ACORN's corruption (the sting operation videos broke on his show). He also exposed Van Jones as the radical 9/11 conspiracy nut that he is. But instead of fact-checking his own community organizers and advisors, Obama is spending our tax dollars to investigate peole who are critical of him. If you don't think that's sick, you're simply too partisan to see the truth.

With this blog post he's just trying to keep people from freaking out over things that aren't true.

Oh yeah, the federal government stepping into the realm of investigative journalism should calm people down. First the government wants to own car companies. Take over banks. Tell exectives how much they can make. Compete with private health care. And now they want to go head-to-head with media outlets which are critical of them. Nothing scary about that. I feel calmer already.

Glen Beck must know that he's popularizing lies. Just because he puts so many of these in the form of a question doesn't mean he's not planting false ideas deliberately.

Well, you could say the same thing for the Keith Oberman show and every single Michael Moore movie. Please show me one instance where the White House has fact checked either of these two men.

This administration recognizes the importance of a well informed public,

Then what the hell happened to Obama's campaign promise to have bills made public 5 days before he signs them?? What the hell happened to the Republican proposal to have the health care bill made public 72 hours before voting on it??? They don't want a well-informed public. They are just covering their ass. That is hilarious, dude.

Do any of you think that the people who will believe whatever Fox News says will change their mind based on a White House blog from an administration that wants to force a major overhaul of our economy and health care and energy production? These people don't trust Obama already. They are going to be more concerned that tax payer dollars are being spent to attack people exercising their free speech than anything this blog has to say.

If Bush were doing this, would your posts be the same? Would you be cheering on the idea of the federal government fact-checking us? You and me? Private citizens? Being fact-checked by our government? Since when is the government the arbiter of truth (of one's opinions)? Is that really a role we want them to assume? I don't want my government to decide what truth is. I decide.

[Plissken]

Quick questions: Has the WH blog been in any way inaccurate? Or is it just that you wish the act of fact checking to now be considered a form of tyranny?

(Just for context, 72% of FOXNews viewers still believe that there will be Death Panels for Gramma.)

[ParanoiA]

Well, I think it's a lot better than the other extreme coming out of the President's former spiritual advisor of 20 years: "Goddamn America!"

There is nothing wrong with the idea that America as an institution, as a social experiment, as a country, is good. The fact that we created a place where freedom and democracy and opportunity thrive in a way that humans haven't seen for most of our bloody history is indeed good. What people choose to do with that freedom isn't always good.

Do patriotic songs make you cringe? Do you refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? Do you love your country? How could you love something that you don't think is good? Personally, I think the fact that you believe "America is good" is sick is sick.

I think you're misunderstanding both me and Beck. And this is why the guy, and his followers, scare me.

No, patriotic songs don't make me cringe. I proudly recite the pledge of allegiance, and I even throw in the "under god" part, even though I don't even believe in that. Yes, I love america. It's the best country on earth, in my opinion. I do think we are most generally good, and certainly good intentions.

The problem is the principle of conclusion : "America is good".

That's like the old shop sign. Rule #1 - the boss is always right. Rule #2 - if the boss is wrong, see rule #1.

It is a logical perversion to state a post-analysis conclusion as a pre-analysis conclusion. The statement suggests that america cannot be bad. That america should not be judged by its citizens because "america is good". That statement implies that objectively analyzing america is a worthless exercise since we've already decided, by principle, america is good.

Does that make more sense? I would have just as much objection to "america is bad". Or, "Obama is good". Those are conclusions, not principles.

And that's why it's sick. That's why it's blind nationalism. It's how you do atrocious things like ethnic cleansing and fend public conscience over it with "<insert country here> is good" propaganda.

No. A better principle would be "America should always strive to be good"...or something. A statement of intent - not a predetermined conclusion cemented in principle.

[Zarathustra]

Paranoia, I understand your point and I agree with it. I just don't think it applies in this instance. Beck spends a lot of his time criticizing our government. In fact, that is why he has drawn their ire. So to say that he would use this "America is good" principle as an excuse to allow America to commit attrocities is quite a stretch. The basis of his career is performing a watchdog role over our government. He spends a lot more time doing this than you or I. So if his principle were merely blind nationalism, why would he be attacking the president and his advisors? That's an entirely contradictory accusation.

No, blind nationalism is more like seeing no problem with the government fact-checking us.

[Zarathustra]

Quick questions: Has the WH blog been in any way inaccurate?

That's an interesting question. Have *you* fact-checked the White House blog? Or do you just blindly accept its conclusions because it comes from a Democrat-controlled White House and because it's attacking those with whom you disagree? Don't you think that the fact that it's a government website lends it an aura of "Official Truth?" Would you blindly trust a Bush fact-checking website?

Should we have another government entity which fact-checks the White House fact-checker? Should it be a Republican committee, in order to be fair and balanced?

Just for context, 72% of FOXNews viewers still believe that there will be Death Panels for Gramma.

Just for context, I'd like to know if it bothers you that Congressman Alan Grayson (D) said on the floor of the House of Representatives that Republicans want us to "die quickly" and said that the lack of health reform is a "holocaust." Has the White House fact-checked this yet? I think that lies from our leaders are more disturbing than lies by political commentators giving their opinion.

[Farsailer]

Quick questions: Has the WH blog been in any way inaccurate? Or is it just that you wish the act of fact checking to now be considered a form of tyranny?

They already have, any time they say no new taxes, they're BS'ing us. Look at the VAT discussion in the other thread.

[ParanoiA]

Paranoia, I understand your point and I agree with it. I just don't think it applies in this instance. Beck spends a lot of his time criticizing our government. In fact, that is why he has drawn their ire. So to say that he would use this "America is good" principle as an excuse to allow America to commit attrocities is quite a stretch. The basis of his career is performing a watchdog role over our government. He spends a lot more time doing this than you or I. So if his principle were merely blind nationalism, why would he be attacking the president and his advisors? That's an entirely contradictory accusation.

No, blind nationalism is more like seeing no problem with the government fact-checking us.

I'm not saying he is, I'm saying the principle does. The principle of "America is good" is flawed. And the fact that he doesn't recognize it, and that his followers won't take issue with it, based on the grounds I laid out, scares the hell out of me.

It's sloppy handling of such an important concept as 'principle'.

I know why he's doing it, anyway. He's countering the culture of 'america is bad' that we seem to get from the liberal corner. I get that. And that doesn't remove the obligation to be thorough, and critical and even pedantic about things you're going to promote as 'principles'.

All of his arguments seem to deteriorate to sloppy argument techniques. And I'm talking about things I agree with him on. He can argue a point I entirely agree with, yet causes me to shake my head with his overly dramatic showmanship that he depends on more than sound reasoning.

[PeasantChick503]

Tjol, just curious, where are you getting your news? Because yes, it's hard to debate with anyone when you don't know their sources.

There is nothing wrong with the idea that America as an institution, as a social experiment, as a country, is good. The fact that we created a place where freedom and democracy and opportunity thrive in a way that humans haven't seen for most of our bloody history is indeed good. What people choose to do with that freedom isn't always good.

Do patriotic songs make you cringe? Do you refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? Do you love your country? How could you love something that you don't think is good? Personally, I think the fact that you believe "America is good" is sick is sick.

(Sorry for the long quote, but it's too full of little gems to toss out.) Now, ok. You've got to realize that that's not what ParanoiA was saying. Lordy. I'm American. I like my country. I'm quite happy to have been born here. I'm get a bit pissed that I have to remind people of those things whenever I talk politics. ParanoiA's point was something I agree with: Love your country, but don't refuse to doubt it. Stating that "America is good" is your number one principle makes you look stubborn for no reason. Can we leave this little distraction alone now? I feel like we're wasting time on it. (Oh look. ParanoiA got in while I was typing this. Well. Moving on then.)

If Bush were doing this, would your posts be the same? Would you be cheering on the idea of the federal government fact-checking us? You and me? Private citizens?

If someone had promoted lies about something Bush was trying to get done, and he had gone through and systematically pointed out each lie one by one, why on Earth would I have a problem with that? These are not private citizens. This is national news. Obama didn't listen in on a private conversation. He listened to what was blaring across countless TVs!

I wasn't cheering when I first read this blog. It kind of scared me. "Oh hell, what's next? He's fighting back. What if it escalates? What if he censors Beck?" I thought about it, and this is what I've settled on: This is a risky move, for the voice of the White House to be up against a major news network's. I'm all for showing the truth. Whoever wants to do it, go for it. But the second anyone tries to force their opponent to stop talking altogether, that's the second I get pissed.

I don't want my government to decide what truth is. I decide.

Wait, who decides? Are you at every congress session, inside every meeting, digging through all of the records? If you are, by god tell us! A single person with access to all of the facts, everything that's been said, all on his own-- share! Don't be bashful. If you think you can pick out what the truth is without having to listen to the government's side of it, you must be able to ignore all news sources in general.

[Plissken]

Quick questions: Has the WH blog been in any way inaccurate?

That's an interesting question. Have *you* fact-checked the White House blog? Or do you just blindly accept its conclusions because it comes from a Democrat-controlled White House and because it's attacking those with whom you disagree? Don't you think that the fact that it's a government website lends it an aura of "Official Truth?" Would you blindly trust a Bush fact-checking website?

Should we have another government entity which fact-checks the White House fact-checker? Should it be a Republican committee, in order to be fair and balanced?

You've not answered my questions, but instead chosen to edit out one of them, and set up a straw man for the other.

Just for context, 72% of FOXNews viewers still believe that there will be Death Panels for Gramma.

Just for context, I'd like to know if it bothers you that Congressman Alan Grayson (D) said on the floor of the House of Representatives that Republicans want us to "die quickly" and said that the lack of health reform is a "holocaust." Has the White House fact-checked this yet? I think that lies from our leaders are more disturbing than lies by political commentators giving their opinion..

And this is just completely non-responsive, unless Grayson is now a reporter for FOX.

EDIT: (If you want to go for a perfect Glenn Beck Debate Team Trifecta, you may now try for a "Look How the Liberals are Persecuting Me!" gambit.)

[Zarathustra]

You've not answered my questions, but instead chosen to edit out one of them, and set up a straw man for the other.

And I've asked a lot of questions you haven't answered, too. I don't know what "strawman" you're talking about. Do you mean the insinuation that one would *wish* government fact-checking private citizens is a form of tyranny? No, you couldn't possibly have meant that, because that particular strawman came from your post. I don't remember anyone mentioning tyranny except you, in your attempt to mischaracterize me.

But since you asked, I decided to check the accuracy of the Official Federal Government Version of the Truth. Let's all look at exactly what it is that our federal government thinks is a threat to a "well informed public." We can do these one at a time, if you all are serious about this.

RHETORIC: BECK SAID VANCOUVER LOST $1 BILLION WHEN IT "HAD THE OLYMPICS." Glenn Beck said, "Vancouver lost, how much was it? they lost a billion dollars when they had the Olympics." [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]

REALITY: VANCOUVER'S OLYMPICS WILL NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL 2010. Vancouver will host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games from February 12 – 28, 2010 and March 12-21, 2010, respectively

This is one of the horrible lies that the federal government thinks represents a threat to a well-informed public? Do they think that Beck has some plot to make people forget which year it is? This is an example of “blind nationalism?” This is one of the attrocities that come from thinking America is “good?” That we might suddenly confuse one city for another?

According to the response to this charge on his website, Beck meant Calgary, not Vancouver. He looked at his notes and read the wrong city. I’m glad the massive resources of the federal government were used to protect me from this grievous oversight. What are they going to protect me from next? Typos?

But Beck's larger point—that Olympics don’t always produce a net gain for a city—was unchallenged by the White House Official Truth Czar. Beck went on to claim:

GLENN: All right. Well, you asked for it. So well, you didn't. But at least the White House asked for the details on the Vancouver games. So let's give you the details on the Vancouver games, which again haven't happened yet. The Vancouver Olympics budgeted $175 million for security. According to the Vancouver Sun, that number may be $800 million higher. British Columbia's auditor general reported that British Columbia, quote, has not fully disclosed the risks associated with the cost and revenue projections, end quote. He says they didn't include, quote, what he and two previous auditors believe should be counted as Olympic related costs. The billion dollar sea to sky highway improvements, the billion dollar trade and convention center and the $2 billion Canada line. That's close to $4 billion that they just kind of shuffled off onto other books. Plus the $600 million the government admits to.

Hold on just a second. I'm not entirely done here. Also missing from the budget, the $300 million Olympic bonus that unionized government employees got for signing a four year contract that ends after the games. I just, I just love these unions. By the way, that contract ends right after the election, too. Transportation to the event, which is another unaccounted for $250 million, Canadians are also on the hook for the Olympic village for a billion dollars. Its original budget was less than $200 million. They thought they could make the money back by selling everything as condos after the games. Yeah, guess how well those condo sales strategies are working out for them. Just interest on the money for all the unsold units could cost Canada $48 million. Every single year. So far we're up to over $6 billion in unaccounted for costs. The original budget was $1 1/2 billion. Also remember it doesn't include everything. There's still almost a year before the games actually start, but, you know, don't worry. They planned for this, you know. They have a contingency fund. $66.8 million. Unfortunately they've already spent 98% of that money.

It seems were’ missing the larger point in this witch-hunt of instances of misspeaking.

And this is just completely non-responsive, unless Grayson is now a reporter for FOX.

So you're more concerned about what private citizens say in their opinions than our elected leaders? You've got the cart before the horse, man.

Tjol, just curious, where are you getting your news? Because yes, it's hard to debate with anyone when you don't know their sources.

I can't speak for Tjol, but unless I'm quoting a news source (for which I always provide a link), I'm giving *my* opinion. I don't see how it's relevant where I get my news in order for you to debate my points, other than to dismiss them as "oh, you're a Fox News watcher. You must be wrong."

Now, ok. You've got to realize that that's not what ParanoiA was saying. Lordy. . . Can we leave this little distraction alone now?

Paranoia and I agree on quite a bit. If you look at my respnse to him above, you'll see that I said that I agree with his point in principle, but not in this particular instance.

As far as distractions go, what do you think about the federal government making sure we know that it's not 2010 yet? Or that Beck should have said "Calgary" instead of "Vancourer?" Do you really think this minutiae is something our federal government should bother with while we have a recession and two wars to fight? Obama can't be bothered to speak to his own general on the ground, but he's got someone to check Beck's typos?? Talk about distractions.

[Tjol]

As I said, what has changed is the dialogue. It's happened in here as well.

Have you considered your contribution? You used to be above this kind of silliness. Outside of this thread, I would assume you found these ad hominums by the administration and congress to be equally silly. I've never taken you for a true believer, but your post in this thread is all true believer.