Humble Pie Denied?

By TIM KILLEEN

Loyal readers will know that I'm a fairly frequent watcher of both Hannity and Glenn Beck. I watch these shows not because I agree with what they say (it's an amazingly rare occasion), but to know what's being told to so many viewers who do- and to be able to say I don't get only one side of the story. Anyone else who watches these programs will also know that the hosts both take every opportunity they can to make global warming out to be a hoax.

A few months back The Sunday Times printed a story about emails from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that contained words like "trick" and "hide" in regards to global warming. Immediately thereupon, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and others used what they dubbed "climategate" as pure and absolute proof that global warming did not exist. I recall one or the other of the FOX hosts (hard to distinguish their words sometimes) saying something to the effect of "Is there any doubt now that global warming is a hoax?"

Well, a panel of scientists at Penn State University has (for the second time) declared that Dr. Michael E. Mann, the climate scientist whose emails were printed by The Times, did not seriously deviate "from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Additionally, The Times has retracted and apologized for a number of misquotes and inaccurate reports it made about the "climategate scandal." So, if evidence of fudging scientific data is proof that global warming is fake, then evidence of fudging journalistic sources should be proof that it's real, right? We'll see.

Having been away most of the week, I wasn't able to keep up with my Hannity-and-Beck-tracking quite as faithfully as usual, so I admit that I'm not sure exactly how they've been covering (if they have at all) the retractions from The Times and the exoneration of Dr. Mann. However, everyone knows from past experience that a lie can linger long after it's been disproved and that retractions are rarely as publicized as juicy false stories. It's likely that those who heard about "climategate" and believed it will either hear about these new revelations and fail to consider them or will simply not hear of them at all. The latter would be a sad happening, but the former would be the worst. When you are finally served a plate of humble pie, the courageous thing to do is simply to eat it.

Ridiculous Video of the Day

So today's RVOTD is actually just audio rather than a full-on video clip, but after the big U.S. win in stoppage time and with this Reuters article, I had to post this clip of Glenn Beck's astonishingly bad (even for him) analogy between the World Cup and Pres. Obama's policies. Despite the fact that a record number of people in the U.S. are watching the World Cup, Beck insists "We don't want the World Cup! We don't like the World Cup!" Clearly, he can't mean everyone because that's just not true. What he must mean by "we" is "people who think like me." So yes, Glenn, people who think like you do think like you. Good point.

The Case for FOX News

I have confession to make: I watch Glenn Beck (and, to a lesser extent, Sean Hannity) at least 2-3 times a week. My friends find this amazing when I tell them. Let me explain. First, no, I don’t agree with almost anything Beck and Hannity say; in fact, I spend about 40% of the show voicing my disagreements out loud (by myself). Second, rarely do I find myself learning anything (although I will admit that on very rare occasions some things they say are legitimate points). Generally, I not only disagree with what they’re saying- I’m often shocked by the self-confidence they have to make utterly false statements- but also the way they say it. While Glenn Beck is constantly whining about the left attacking him and claiming that he only points out bad things about government for the betterment of society, you never see Newt Gingrich being slapped up on the chalkboard with his background and associations from twenty years ago called into question. FOX News is not fair and balanced.

However, I still find merit, besides getting my blood boiling, to watching FOX News. First, I find it amazing (read: frightening) that Beck commands the followers he has, and it would be unwise not to check in from time to time to understand what it is he says to those who hang on his every word. Also, when I and fellow liberals see a Youtube video with a guy interviewing teapartiers, the minute they mention FOX, Beck or Hannity, we assume them to be partisan zombies, incapable and unwilling to listen to any other point of view. Then, we sit down and turn on MSNBC (admittedly biased, although not as much as FOX) or read The New Republic or check out Talking Points Memo to get our news. Certainly, we’ve fallen into a similar trap on the other side: putting on news-blinders.

If that teapartier claimed Obama was a socialist Muslim and then explained that they get their news from FOX, CNN, MSNBC, the Times, The Atlantic and Charlie Rose, I’d still disagree with them, but I’d have a much harder time saying they’re ill-informed. Indeed, they would be less ill-informed. By watching FOX News, I may only run across one point in the whole day (if that) that I agree with, but at least I understand what the other side is saying. I may go to freerepublic.com just to see how unintelligent and hateful people can be, but no one can say I haven’t heard both sides before making up my mind. In a world of polarized media- and I’m not saying all “mainstream media” is liberal, it’s not- those who truly hope to have the full picture are going to have to go outside their comfort zones to hear an opposing viewpoint.