Talk:Glenn Beck (TV program)/Archive 1

Exposed: The Climate of Fear
I reduced some information here and linked to the article on Exposed: The Climate of Fear Thoughts?--Zeeboid 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Public Personality Deconstruction
I think it would be helpful to include a section describing Beck's method of dealing with his critics. Anyone who watches the show, knows he basically researches the person and then presents that person in a negative light based on his research. A sort of character assassination. But having trouble finding secondary sources. Anyone know of any?LynnCityofsin (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Other
Could anybody find the "old" logo (that was used since the beginning of the program.)? Thanks, 68.117.177.213 20:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Just go on yahoo and type in glenn beck logo. (though you might want to maybe if this does not work add old) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.233.69 (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bias
This article, and the main Glenn Beck article, appear to be written and edited by fans of Mr. Beck. Neither really contain much regarding his multiple controversies, or his blatant lies. Objective doesn't mean you paint extremists as moderates. The man has genuinely extreme, conspiracy theorist views. And this should be addressed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

69.119.233.69, don't delete comments on the talk page unless they violate the talk page guidelines. Thank you. J DIGGITY  SPEAKS  21:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Why?
Why is more than half of this article devoted to one interview Glenn Beck gave? It might have been big, but I don't think it deserves to take up half of this article.PokeHomsar (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the Al Sharpton interview and update this article. Anyone object? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PokeHomsar (talk • contribs) 15:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it does not fit here. Perhaps it is worth placing on Sharpton's page but not on Glenn Beck's. --Ishmael N. Daro 20:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishmaeldaro (talk • contribs)

9/12 project (aka "you are not alone")
This is not notable, nor is it related to Beck's television show. It should be briefly mentioned in passing on Beck's page (not his TV show's page), if at all. It certainly should be removed from this page. MichaelLNorth (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Controversy
Glenn Beck's television show has become controversial in liberal media. Whether the accusations against him are correct is immaterial, but I think there should be a section which makes a note of this fact. --Crunk04gtp (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But not by citing Media Matters' web site, which is apparently blacklisted by bots here. Violates NPOV. Sorry. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it does not violate NPOV. Please take the time to read what I have posted. Again, the issue is not as to whether accusations against Beck are in accurate, the issue is to whether they exist, which clearly they do. This is something which someone who knows nothing of Glenn Beck's television program should be aware. Daily Kos, Bill O'Reilly and may other partisan pundits have controversy sections. The article on Beck will be incomplete without one. Clearly the sources from which these accusations emanate will be partisan in nature. Conservative blogs are not going to write negative opinions against conservative commentators. Again, citing these sources has nothing to do with the information within, it is only to illustrate that controversy exists. Because this is a widespread belief in the liberal community and can be verified through a plurality of sources.--Crunk04gtp (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that his show is losing significant advertisers over complaints from liberal organizations, this can't be ignored anymore. 76.239.59.53 (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this, like the Glenn Beck (person) article NEEDS a controversy section. Ninjaclown (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I added one earlier today called "Reception" (less POV than "Controversy") that covers the recent boycotts.  Morphh   (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I made a separate section heading for the advertiser boycotts since it's probably the most notable thing that's happened to Beck's show over its entire history. Moreover, this is the kind of information many people expect to find when visiting the article, so it keeps things more organized and easier to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StealthCopyEditor (talk • contribs) 12:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Condensation of the "Exposed" material
The way this is formatted looks ridiculous (4 sections, 1-2 sentences each), and I think we should consider whether these television specials are being given too much weight in the article.

Condense and remove excessive granularity. I am indifferent as to whether each of the "Exposed" episodes should be mentioned explicitly, but certainly they shouldn't each have their own subsection.MichaelLNorth (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely. StealthCopyEditor (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Why so much info on Van Jones
Van Jones is not connected to the advertiser boycott, other than he helped found an organization that organized some letter writing to beck's advertisers in 2005. He was not behind the boycott, he didn't "order" it, and Color of Change's website says directly that he hasn't been "involved" in several years. Why is it important to the article about Glenn Beck's TV show to include that he resigned? MichaelLNorth (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because, as several articles have noted, Beck was the one who led the charge to discredit Jones and have him removed. It's all over Politico and HuffPo. Beck has been riding Jones' butt for nearly two weeks, and Jones resigned "under cover of darkness" Saturday night. While other politicians and conservative pundits (such as Rush Limbaugh) have also publicly called for Jones' scalp, Beck was the first and loudest by any prudent measure. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand this, but it is unrelated to the "calling Obama a racist" controversy. The way it is written now makes it sound like there is some substantive connection (i.e., Jones was somehow responsible for the advertiser boycott, which he was not). MichaelLNorth (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I moved over the part from the Van Jones where Huffington Post and Huffington herself were just howling over Beck's "first scalp". At least the political left is sure that Beck is responsible for this "atrocity". If they credit Beck for Acorn currently burning and sinking, that should be noted too, since they just got dumped by the Census and got defunded. The fact that mainstream media didn't cover anything until AFTER van Jones resigned was also noted by the conservative media. Mark Lloyd is currently under lock and key, safe from adding any information outside of the official FCC biography, there's a vote there if you think the block should be removed. Bachcell (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just left you a message on your talk page, but I will say it again here for the purposes of getting others' opinions. As I have said before on Talk:Glenn Beck, it is going too far to say that Jones resigned because of Beck's criticism, and to imply otherwise is using a logical fallacy to make a point. WND is taking credit for "the first white house casualty" as well, and they started reporting on Jones long before Beck jumped on the bandwagon. Keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to any information about Jones in the encyclopedia, so you will need to go over your language (i.e., "forced to resign" would be a POV term, unless you know something I don't know). — Mike : tlk  23:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the section is written from the perspective of Van Jones being the topic. — Mike : tlk  23:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism of Van Jones" section
Here is the section I moved from the article to this talk space:

Van Jones
Van Jones resigned from his position as Special Advisor to the president in September 2009 after becoming a the major subject of news stories on programs such as Glenn Beck after lesser known conservative groups had first aired concerns as early as April The early critics received coverage from Fox News,  notably from Fox commentator Glenn Beck, who featured Jones on 14 episodes of his show. They forced Van Jones in July and August 2009 to defend his past including membership of a socialist group and support for Mumia Abu-Jamal, a death row prisoner convicted of killing a police officer. Editors credited Beck with his "first scalp", noting that the Huffington Post expressed continued support for Jones, singling out the efforts of Glenn Beck to force his resignation, though Beck was not the first to voice concerns about the appointment. Beck has also asked his viewers to help "find everything you can" on other "czars" such as Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd and Carol Browner.

The ACORN organization which helps low income persons secure affordable housing threatened a lawsuit against FOX which aired Beck's showing of secretly taped videos. ACORN announced "It is clear that the videos doctored, edited and in no way the result of the fabricated story being portrayed by the conservative activist filmmaker O'Keefe and his partner in crime. And in fact, a crime it was — our lawyers believe a felony. And we will be taking legal action against FOX and their co-conspirators."

My concerns are as follows
 * The voice of the section needs to be changed, so that it is more appropriate for an article about Glenn Beck's TV show. For example, it says "notably from Fox commentator Glenn Beck". You don't need to introduce Beck, as his show is the topic of the article. The section should be about beck's involvement in Jones' resignation, not about Jones' resignation its self. Obviously there's some overlap, but you shouldn't start out by saying "Van Jones resigned from his position as....".


 * WP:NPOV check. Please understand that WP:BLP still applies to any information about Van Jones, anywhere on Wikipedia. "Giving credit" to Beck for whatever his role in Jones' resignation was is not NPOV. The term "first scalp" is not NPOV. The tone of the section is quite celebratory over the resignation, and this is a problem.


 * WP:RS check. The whole paragraph about ACORN is based on a transcript from Beck's show. This is not a reliable source. Please find appropriate sources. I suggest you remove the Huffington post source, since we are pretty strict about that in this article, and in Glenn Beck. If you use it in your section, that sets a prescedent for all the HuffPo Beck criticism to make it into the article.

Thanks. — Mike : tlk  16:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Viewership
Anyone have a good source for his average amount of viewership? I think that would be an important addition of facts to this article. Cowicide (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is from tvbythenumbers.com, which is a subsidiary of Nielsen Media Research.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64) Glenn Beck – 2,677,000 viewers (759,000) (1,228,000) Situation Room—500,000 viewers (102,000) (181,000) Hardball w/ Chris Matthews—555,000 viewers (133,000) (326,000) Fast Money—158,000 viewers (43,000) (69,000) Prime News–233,000 viewers (93,000) (46,000)

They have graphs of all the major cable network shows compared to each other, but I'm not so good at loading pictures into the Commons. If anyone knows how, feel free to go here. J DIGGITY  SPEAKS  04:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Gold Line

 * | Yahoo News


 * | LA Times: Glenn Beck's flawed gold standard
 * | NY Times: Glenn Beck’s Gold Deal Raising Questions at Fox
 * | Politico: Beck's Cross of Gold
 * | Daily Show Video
 * | Colbert Nation: Video

Should all these go in this article or should they go here? Dflav1138 (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters for America
I took changed the description of Media Matters (in the reception section) from "leftist" to "progressive". Leftist is clearly a POV term, and overly broad (because it also can be taken to include communist revolutionaries). Think progressive is more accurate term. LynnCityofsin (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you've heard Beck rail against progressivism, you'd think that it's worse than being a leftist. (And he may be right.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the issue here is leftist is sort of a pejorative term for liberal/progressive/left wing, often used by conservatives in the US. I don't think this is the place to debate the merits of progressivism. Just pointing out that leftist is not an accurate term to use, and implies POV. LynnCityofsin (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ratings/Viewers
"Beck's ratings have risen significantly" versus "Beck has gained more viewers". I thought the former was POV because none of the sources said that, and that someone was adding their own color to the section to enhance it. The articles specifically say stuff like "his numbers went up" and then list the numbers. Actually, it's probably more WP:SYNTHESIS than WP:POV. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure none of the articles said it was a "significant" increase, or any variation thereof. In fact, I think only one article talks about the increase. The rest of the articles are comparing the Glenn Beck show to other Fox shows. They don't belong there as sources. Akerans (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess your right, technically. I mean, I think we all know his ratings rose significantly(actually to say they rose significantly is an understatement). I don't see any harm in keeping it as it was in the original sentence, but if it's all the same I suppose we can go with your choice of words. Ink Falls   17:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since significantly could be subjective, we could probably use a percentage and source the articles that have the numbers. ...his ratings rose by over ...%  Morphh   (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, it was a significant increase. I agree. But, I think the other point I was trying to make (and I'm never really good at saying what I want to say the first time around) it was also an WP:EDITORIAL comment that didn't belong. I concure with Morphh, adding a % would be accurate as well. Or, even the numbers. I believe the article said he went from something like 500,000 to 3,000,000 viewers. Akerans (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

bias in reception section
about half of the reception section is his own comments. thatts not reception, thats hus veiw of himself with by deffinition is bias. im not saying it should be completly excluded but reduced to his responses to criticisms or such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.130.59 (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Time
In Central Time (i.e., MN) Glenn Beck airs at 1:00 AM. Dunno if this is very important or not, just figured I'd tell. :D 66.60.210.32 (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)