Search Home Profile Account

Andrew's Profile · Andrew's Wall Birthdays See All

Birthdays:
Andrew Wienick
Laelle Busch, Amy Dicker, Anne
Congrats Angelo (aka Stop Beck ). Do us proud! Persin, Kelly Mullins Johnson
Media Matters Hires Angelo Carusone, Leader Of 'Stop Beck' Movement, To Recommended Pages See All
Ramp Up Campaign Against Fox
www.huffingtonpost.com Harry Potter
WASHINGTON -- The battle between progressives and Fox News just got hotter. Tricia Murphy Schmidt and
Liberal watchdog Media Matters has hired one of Glenn Beck's key nemeses, a 15 other friends like this.
man who has been working behind the scenes (and more publicly on Twitter) for Like
the past year to convince advertisers to drop the right-wing icon.
Sponsored Create an Ad
December 9 at 6:53am · · Like · Comment · Share
Giving Gives Back
Ariel Kass likes this. TurboTax is
donating up to
Jeffrey C. Smith If you dislike him, ignore him. The $100K to charity.
more attention drawn to him the more you feed his Choose a charity to
influence! receive a $5
donation.
December 9 at 8:23am · Like
Tufts Jumbos Gift Shop
Andrew Wienick Would you have people ignore collegefootballstore.com
Goebbels if he was around today? Or would you
rather people call him on his vitriol and lies?
December 9 at 8:56am · Like

Jeffrey C. Smith heh, you're not seriously

comparing a short, chubby, loud-mouthed, political Looking for Tufts Jumbos gifts?
commentator who condemns violence to a Nazi CollegeFootballStore.com has a
leader, are you? great selection of Jumbos gear!
Click here to shop now.
I was trying to help out your cause, but keep
Grace's Favorite Cheddar
drawing attention to Becky if you like! And for the
Who knew our
record, I don't care for him either, thus, I ignore Grace was a
him =) cheddar gourmet?
December 9 at 9:20am · Like We did...And we got
proof of her
Andrew Wienick Principle is the same. And yes, I preparing her own
grilled cheese on
am. Lies are lies, no matter if from the private the tour bus!
sector or the public.
December 9 at 9:31am · Like Free Silverman Audiobook
audible.com
Jeffrey C. Smith Feel free to point out what you Download
like, I just think doing so undermines what you're Bedwetter free, for
attempting to do. The severity and object of "lies" use on your iPod or
(as you call them) matters tremendously. Otherwise MP3 player, or
choose from over
we should all be running around paranoid with 60,000 other titles.
everything that anyone with an audience says. Learn More at
December 9 at 9:45am · Like Audible.com

Andrew Wienick http://mediamatters.org/re

search/201012090001

Seems pretty demonizing to me

December 9 at 11:34am · Like

Jeffrey C. Smith Again, not my point. But somehow

I think my point will continue to be avoided, so I'll
simply conclude with this important tale:

http://www.weebls-stuff.co
m/toons/A+Walk+In+The+Woods/
December 9 at 12:13pm · Like

Derick Loafmann Pardon my interruption, but

having one (large) segment of the population
simply ignore somebody that another (somewhat
smaller, though relatively sizable) section of the
population is rallying around hardly seems like an
effective strategy at this juncture. If a particular
viewpoint already has a firm grasp on a segment of
the population and continues to feed
misinformation (a nice way of saying "lies") in an
effort to stoke public alarm and increase its
numbers, letting that voice go unchecked is a sure
way to allow those numbers to increase. In a culture
which seems to value speed over detail, Beck's
surface-level reports and attention-grabbing
proclamations have served him well (obviously).
What has caused Beck's ratings and support to
decline has been pointing out the details that he
ignores. Highlighting Beck's errors and ridiculous
claims (e.g. that Obama, whose mother and
maternal grandparents were white - not to mention
a large number of his staff and advisors, hates
white people) and exposing Beck's underlying
motivations have hurt the influence he has over a
lot of people. Abandoning the strategy that has
been and is proving to be effective would be
disastrous at this point. Eventually, I hope that
Beck's influence becomes minimal enough that
ignoring his hysteria is a more effective method of
dealing this self-aggrandizing, irresponsible jerk. I
just don't believe we've reached that place yet.
Jeffrey, I don't know you at all, so please don't take
this personally. I just happen to disagree with your
strategy. Perhaps we simply disagree on the
amount of influence Beck has. Does that address
your point directly enough?
December 9 at 7:40pm · Like

Jeffrey C. Smith Ahh, now we are getting

somewhere. I'll jump back in the ring...

Derick, to a large degree we have to take both your

claims and mine anecdotally, for lack of statistical
evidence. You argue that attacking Beck diminishes
his influence, I argue to the contrary. I don't follow
his ratings, and without building an incredibly
complex regression model that's beyond my skills
we can't quantify things easily, but let me use a
similar example to show why I think my analysis
holds true.

Take the simple example of earlier this year when

the illustrious Robert Gibbs, Rahm Emanuel, David
Axelrod, and even Obama all decided to repeatedly
denounce Fox News for all sorts of similar reasons
to what is being raised against Beck (lies, biased,
slanted, etc. etc.). What was the result? Ratings
spiked for Fox over that span. Indeed, even the
liberal political strategists I listened to admitted it
was a bad strategy to attack the media, it's never
worked for any administration, it's only helped their
adversaries. Admittedly, there is a slightly different
element involved, given that it's the White House in
that case and not special interest groups, but it's a
very close analogy none the less.

Remember the old maxim that in the media world,

all press is good press (okay, most of the time).
Attacking one's media enemies using the media
seems to only work against the intent. I at least
can't think of any good examples of it being
effective, but if you have some I'd be interested to
hear them. And I mean that sincerely, for I am
willing to reconsider if that evidence & examples
are overwhelming.

The core issue (I think), that indeed Andy and I

seem to end up sparring on regularly, is that I view
the greater issue is attacking ignorance and
encouraging critical thinking in people, not trying
to decide what news sources, op-eds, talk radio,
etc. that they shouldn't listen to and attacking
those sources. Or put another way, I think that
energy is better spent on the former goals, not the
latter.

Lies and vitriole never stand the test of time. I

simply argue to keep encouraging people to think
critically, and let the free market of ideas raise up
the good voices and bury the bad ones.

Oh, and you do know me, somewhat. We graduated

from Barrington together, but I was in lots of
classes with Andy and I don't think you and I had
any courses together. But then again, someone
I/we apparently went to high school with, who
works at Trader Joes, knew exactly who I was the
other day at the check out counter and I was a
complete blank. So maybe you and I shared half of
our the same schedule in high school and I'm just
completely forgetting? Who knows!
December 9 at 9:13pm · Like

Derick Loafmann Thanks for jumping back into the

ring! We all seem to think a good
discussion/debate on vital issues is important.

Preface: Jeffrey, we may know each other and just

don't recall each other at the moment. I didn't have
a ton of classes with Andy. Maybe our schedules
didn't overlap. BHS was a big school. I didn't realize
how big until I went to a college that was smaller
than my high school. Okay, to the vital issues.

I guess my first contention is that I don't believe

the old maxim that all press is good press (which,
to be fair, you also acknowledge in the
parentheses), particularly with branding. Glenn Beck
is, in addition to being a pundit, a brand. What this
anti-Beck movement is doing is using a marketing
strategy. They are asking whether or not businesses
want to be associated with the "Glenn Beck"
business. Look at the language used by the
companies involved. Kraft said it didn't want to be
associated with Beck's brand. It's not about Beck's
journalistic integrity (if you can call it that), it's
about his business, Glenn Beck's TV and radio
shows. On these shows, Beck makes controversial
and often inflammatory statements. A lot of
businesses don't want to be linked to that kind of
attention. It would seem that they don't believe that
all press is good press either.

Actually, this strategy isn't trying to censor anyone.

This strategy is about analyzing whether or not
associating with Glenn Beck's brand is good
business. No one is telling him that he can't say,
believe or even broadcast his ideas. They are saying
that they don't want to be a part of those ideas.

But that's not really what's at issue here, I think.

Leaving Andy out of the equation because I'm not
Andy, so I can't speak for him, the reason I like this
"Stop Beck" sentiment is that I believe Glenn Beck's
irresponsible behavior needs to be addressed.
That's really what you and I are debating at this
point, right? This debate started because you
suggested, "if you don't like him, ignore him." That
addresses how information and sources are
handled.

Frankly, I don't see how "ignore him" promotes

critical thinking. In fact, ignoring Beck for long
enough would lead to ignorance of his tactics and
motives. Neither of us want ignorance (despite the
old maxim that "ignorance is bliss"). Furthermore, I
would argue that highlighting his massive errors in
analysis and critical thinking would endorse the
very thing you and I seem to agree to be most
beneficial and most needed: critical thinking. The
fact is that a person can read, watch, listen to any
source he/she pleases, but it is tremendously
important to consider the motivation of the source,
particularly when discussing politics. Beck's
neutrality and journalistic credibility were
tremendously undercut when, after Glenn Beck
frequently asks his audience to "follow the money"
in an effort to discover "liberal conspiracy," his
employer donates a large sum of money directly to
a political party. Yet Beck is not critical of Fox
News. Hypocritical, no? That was critical thinking
regarding Glenn Beck's credibility and interests. I
wouldn't have been able to do that if I was ignoring
him.

I wish to vaguely dispute the notion that everything

we're discussing requires complex regression
models. Honestly, I'm not even sure what that is.
I'm assuming it has to do with influence, which I do
agree is anecdotal. However, ratings are statistics.
Given a rather short amount of time to research a
few memorable controversies from Beck's show
(finding out dates and ratings numbers) and a few
reaction stories to these controversies (again, dates
and Beck's ratings numbers), I'm sure you could
come up with a fairly decent idea of how much of
an effect the disputes have had on Beck's ratings
(for and against). I'm sure you'd find that
sometimes, the old maxim about no bad press hold
true. I'm also sure you'd find that sometimes it
doesn't hold true. Since Beck's numbers seem to be
down of late, I would hypothesize that you'd find
the maxim is far less true. This would be by no
means a conclusive study, but it's also not
completely without measurement.

Finally, there's a problem with the paragraph about

lies, vitriol and time. Actually, a few. Lies and
vitriol don't need much time to do a lot of damage.
Do I expect that, if unchecked, Beck's ravings would
spark the kind of lies and vitriol that controlled
much of Europe in the 1920s-40s? No. But it
doesn't need to reach the level of fascism to be
damaging. Simply ignoring Beck denies critical
thinking on Beck's rants a voice in the free market
of ideas. Leaving Beck's irresponsible, inflammatory
info -taiment as the only voice on the subject not
only robs the market of a good voice, but also of
the most useful tool in burying bad ones.
December 9 at 10:28pm · Like

Jeffrey C. Smith Hi Derick,

Wow, we're getting thorough here. Let me see if I

can summarize the main issue that was originally
discussed, then I'll try to go through each subpoint
in a little more detail. I'll try to be as brief as
possible, but obviously we are unpacking a lot here,
so bear with me.

My original/main point, which you dispute for a

variety of reasons, is really whether attacking Beck
(or anyone with an opinion -based show for that
matter) is a worthwhile strategy. I argue that most
of the time it is not, as it generally 1) polarizes
people further (just look at the message boards on
stopbeck.com for evidence), and 2) draws even
more attention towards someone. In other words,
you can't control whose attention you will attract
when you lash out at Beck, and the more you are
out there attacking, the more people take notice,
and sheer randomness ensures that a percentage of
them will find him attractive to listen to regardless
of what you say.

Does that mean attacking someone never works?

No, but I still believe that most of the time one is
better served spending energy letting people say
whatever they want and focusing on one's own
positive message instead.

I whole-heartedly have no issue with stopbeck.com,

the Huffington Post, Media Matters, or anyone else
putting out whatever critical commentary they want,
I'm simply trying to say I think it undermines what
they intend. I think the strategy is, on the net,
flawed.

Regarding my comment about regression models,

that was just a fancy way of saying that we can't
really quantify the effects of any efforts on this
easily. There are probably ten thousand factors that
go into what influences Beck's ratings. You can't
say, without a bunch of statistical data: X occurred
(stopbeck.com attacked), Y happened (Beck's
ratings dipped), therefore X caused Y. Beck ratings
are a function of Y,Z,A,B,C,M,L,J, etc. etc. My point
is simply that we have to resort to anecdotal
evidence, which is generally less desirable, but
that's what we have to work with.

Regarding censure, you are correct, this is

technically not directly on the table here. It is,
arguably, being raised indirectly because going
after one's revenue source (advertisers) represents
an attempt to get one's views off the air, i.e.
censured. However, my comments draw mainly
from other instances I've observed on other
matters, but I am fine leaving that discussion point
aside as it's not really the main thrust of what we
are talking about.

Now, to the "ignore" discussion. Again, that ties to

my strategic comments above, but let me clarify
one key point you raised. One can ignore a source
after one has heard it, analyzed it, and found it to
be lacking in some way. For example, I used to
listen to/watch Beck, mainly out of curiousity
regarding what all the fuss was about. And while I
think peoples' complaints about him are WAY
overblown, I don't think most of his content is very
interesting or thorough, and his delivery drives me
a little nuts. Therefore, I am very comfortable
saying that in my ignoring of Beck (I do now) it's
not based on him saying stuff I don't like, or fear,
it's based on a reasonably informed opinion and
experience. People can, and should, not waste their
time ingesting bad information sources on a
regular basis. They should, however, not ignore
them so much that they can't even make an
informed decision that they are bad information
sources. I think you and I completely agree that
ignoring something out of fear, ignorance, myopia,
etc. is not good, and I don't mean to convey
something to the contrary.

One can't consume endless amounts of every media

source, it's just not reasonable. But I'd venture that
most of the stopbeck.com supporters, have very
very limited experience watching Beck, and the
support amounts to cheerleading against something
they don't like because it represents a political
opposition to their beliefs. Beck is "the enemy" in
their minds, even if they don't fully know why, so
anyone supporting his demise is good. He's a
lightning rod for political debate, mainly because of
his popularity and bizarre delivery, more so than
the lies and "lies" that get dragged around.

I'll believe that entities like stopbeck.com are being

non-partisan, as claimed on the website, when they
go after someone on the left. I listen to enough
liberal talk shows to hear a mountain of partial
truths, name-calling, and fear-mongering (evil
Republicans are out to take money from you and
give it to rich people!). That's part of what makes
me just scratch my head at all the opposition to
Beck and anyone else. I can think of plenty of
opinion -based shows, especially locally, that are of
lower quality than Beck's, but I don't think it's
productive to spend time attacking them and trying
to get them pulled from the air by going after their
sponsors.

Here, perhaps we can summarize agree on this:

Journalistic integrity, regardless of the source, is
highly desirable, and attempting to present facts as
accurately as possible, even if only to promote
one's cause, is extremely valuable to the promotion
of good ideas and thought. And we should all
promote critical thinking amongst each other
wherever possible.

Perhaps we will always disagree on what to do

when the above isn't happening, hopefully this
summary is the core common ground we can find.
December 10 at 9:53am · Like

Derick Loafmann Shoot, I really want to read this

thoroughly and respond accordingly, but I'm at
work (on break) and can't risk it at the moment.
After work, I have a friend in from out of town, so I
may not get to this tonight. I promise I'll respond in
the next day or so. It's looking more and more like
we simply have a difference of opinion on strategy,
but that's just from skimming your response.
December 10 at 10:22am · Like

Jeffrey C. Smith No worries, I burned too much of

the work day myself. Take whatever time is needed,
Facebook isn't going anywhere. Meanwhile I'll taunt
Andy during intermission:
http://senorgif.memebase.c
om/2010/12/10/funny -gifs-e verybody-dance-
now/
December 10 at 10:26am · Like

Derick Loafmann Okay, still haven't read your

recent response in detail (two show day today +
laundry = little free time, but at least Derick no
longer smells like a foot), but I thought I'd post this
critical analysis on Glenn Beck's recent radio claims
that the number of Muslim terrorists is closer to
10% than 1% as well as his assertion that 0.5% of
Americans want to violently overthrow the
government.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#
/video/us/2010/12/10/gps.witw.glenn.beck.cnn?
hpt=T2

In a way, it's actually kind of funny... well, as funny

as CNN gets.
December 11 at 9:56pm · Like

Andrew Wienick Nothing like race-baiting and

Islamophobia to get you called out by Fareed, eh?
He, as, always, does a fine job whenever he puts
pen to paper or opens his mouth. Hopefully people
took notice when this story broke…
Yesterday at 7:07am · Like

Derick Loafmann ​@Andy, yeah, Fareed is good.

And reasonable. He seems to examine multiple
sides of an issue to help further understanding and
that's vital in this climate, if you will.

@Jeffrey- you and I agree about journalistic

integrity, yes. We also agree that the best way to
approach news is with an open mind and a critical
eye. And we will probably never agree on the ratio
of time ignoring is more effective than voicing
critical analysis. It would also appear from your #2
in your second paragraph that we still disagree on
the "all press is good press" maxim. And I
understand what you mean by your regression
model. It's very complex and certainly no one event
will obviously account for prolonged ratings drop
most of the time, regardless of whose ratings they
are. Furthermore, I don't wish to dispute the
effectiveness ignoring Glenn Beck has had in your
personal dealings with him. If that works for you,
great. If not, also great. However, I will say that just
because you made up your mind to ignore him a
while ago doesn't mean that things he says now
should be ignored. As stated earlier, he has a fair
amount of followers and your ability and my ability
to discern that Beck is fairly non-sensicle has
apparently left them unaffected.

I would highlight your point about Beck's show

being an "opinion-based show." While you and I
certainly are aware that it is. And Glenn Beck is
certainly aware that it is. The way he promotes
those opinions is done in a deceptive manner. The
inflammatory comments he's made are ill-informed
at best. The Obama Is A Racist comment that I
mentioned in my initial response is prime example
using fear to promote his disapproval of the
president. When confronted with this, Beck first
defended it, then changed his answer (which, to his
credit, was right to do). But when he changed his
answer, he pushed the blame to "liberation
theology." Unfortunately, Beck defined "liberation
theology" incorrectly. You can even ask a priest for
the definition. Nevertheless, Beck has railed against
his imaginary version of "liberation theology" and
particularly "black liberation theology," which he
linked to extremist groups of the New Black
Panthers (who much of the old Black Panther
leadership has actually disavowed, but that's not
the point) when they suggested killing white babies.
So, essentially, Beck "apologized" for his racism
comment, then went on to call Obama racist in a
more creative and threatening manner. Beck did not
present any of these points as opinions, but as
facts. That's flat-out deceit.

As for the non-partisanship aspect of the

discussion, that's not the point, is it? Irresponsibility
exists on both sides of the spectrum and just
because it comes from one side as opposed to the
other doesn't make it okay. I think we can agree on
that. Is the possible motive for StopGlennBeck
choosing to target Glenn Beck the fact that he was
the biggest rising star of the opinion -as-fact
pundits ? Given that the stated aim of the website is
to hold Beck responsible for his "continued
recklessness," I'd have to say it's more about the
manner in which he states his opinions than the
opinions themselves. As a matter of fact, the site
states this. If the rising star of irresponsible
journalism was from the left side of the aisle, you'd
better believe that there would be a similar effort to
hold that voice accountable. I'd even bet that some,
though not all (there's a whole other topic here
about vocal extremes influencing outside
perception, which addresses the some of the
message boards at StopGlennBeck and on Glenn
Beck's own site), of the people who support
StopGlennBeck would support an effort to stop
whichever a fearmonger from the left. You could
count me in, for one. But again, this is more
tangential to our discussion.

So it seems we continue to disagree, which is, of

course, fine. And we probably will for a long time,
particularly in a media culture that is dominated by
punditry. Not because either of us is particularly
partisan, but because it a climate like this, it's
harder to find and agree upon what defines a non-
partisan source.
Yesterday at 7:11pm · Like

Jeffrey C. Smith Derick,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll be a little

rambling and random here in my response , since
most of this debate is effectively resolved to one
degree or another, if only to agree to disagree.

First, I'm shocked you'd call me non-partisan! I

don't think of myself as Republican, but most of my
political views happen to align with a conservative
philosophy, a philosophy that presently, at least in
theory, is best represented by the Republican Party.
I don't have any affinity for the party itself, but as
long as their members more closely align with
some of the core conservative principles and
political issues that I value, than I will more closely
align with Republicans. I trust this isn't a shock,
especially if you read through Andy's posts.

I do pay too much attention to the political

landscape in this country, especially what goes on
in the political commentary world. Ironically, after
several years of more intense focus on this, I find
the vast majority of such commentary quite useless,
or so hopelessly slanted and predictable that it's
borderline worthless. Fresh thoughts & ideas are
hard to come by, political grandstanding is not.
Beck is one of a long list falling into the latter
category. I guess I am just surprised that he
garners so much attention from left-leaning
entities (or anyone for that matter).

Okay, time to go buy some gold, vacuum-sealed

rations, and learn how to grow my own vegetables.

Jeff
8 hours ago · Like

Derick Loafmann Jeff,

It's been nice having a discussion about a hot-

button topic that didn't involve foaming at the
mouth from either side (of the debate, not the
mouth). You and I may sit on opposite sides of
center (though neither of us seems too enthused
about the current state of our representative
 parties) and disagree about a number of things, but
it would appear that we share a common value
here. That's a very good thing.

Well, I'm off to hug a tree, redistribute some wealth

and, strangely enough, learn to grow my own
"vegetables."

Derick
(who is apparently into parenthetical statements
this evening)
2 hours ago · Like

Write a comment...

Facebook © 2010 · English (US) About · Advertising · Developers · Careers · Privacy · Terms · Help