Glenn Beck to KRLA 870AM

[OCradiodude]

LARadio is reporting that starting on July 6, 2010, Glenn Beck will be live from 6 to 9 a.m. on KRLA.

Say goodbye to Mike Gallagher.

 

[WTFman]

I know many on the Left will bemoan or pooh pooh this development but I think it's pure genius of KRLA to make this change. This is a 100% correct decision which will actually prompt me to check Salem (SALM) out as an investment. Beck will bring more exposure to Prager and make KRLA a morning player in the talk game. This is dramatically encouraging news for KRLA.
KABC is the major loser having now officially fallen off the conservative map in the mornings. My, how the mighty have fallen. Handle's numbers will probably drop some as well since there'll be an entertaining alternative to KFI.
Personally, I'd like to see KRLA shed itself of Michael Medved and pick up someone fresher and less acerbic but I'm very happy to finally have someone to listen to 6-9 again.

 

[nmoore6676]

I know many on the Left will bemoan or pooh pooh this development but I think it's pure genius of KRLA to make this change. This is a 100% correct decision which will actually prompt me to check Salem (SALM) out as an investment. Beck will bring more exposure to Prager and make KRLA a morning player in the talk game. This is dramatically encouraging news for KRLA.
KABC is the major loser having now officially fallen off the conservative map in the mornings. My, how the mighty have fallen. Handle's numbers will probably drop some as well since there'll be an entertaining alternative to KFI.
Personally, I'd like to see KRLA shed itself of Michael Medved and pick up someone fresher and less acerbic but I'm very happy to finally have someone to listen to 6-9 again.

I second your comment. This is a good move and if they take your suggestion on Medved that would be a real stroke of genius. Glenn's previous presence on KLAA and then KGIL didn't give him adequate exposure. KRLA's signal is wider reaching than the previous ones so hopefully people will give him a chance with an open mind.

Listen to his show don't pay attention to the naysayers who don't but still feel free to editorialize on what they presume he is saying.

 

[Michael Rivers Kramer]

I know many on the Left will bemoan or pooh pooh this development but I think it's pure genius of KRLA to make this change. This is a 100% correct decision which will actually prompt me to check Salem (SALM) out as an investment. Beck will bring more exposure to Prager and make KRLA a morning player in the talk game. This is dramatically encouraging news for KRLA.
KABC is the major loser having now officially fallen off the conservative map in the mornings. My, how the mighty have fallen. Handle's numbers will probably drop some as well since there'll be an entertaining alternative to KFI.
Personally, I'd like to see KRLA shed itself of Michael Medved and pick up someone fresher and less acerbic but I'm very happy to finally have someone to listen to 6-9 again.

Salem is a commercial religious broadcaster that never really seems to worry about ratings for their conservative talkers. I can't see them ever besting another station in the market. They do, however get a higher than average share in Los Angeles, compared to their talkers in other markets. They run things on the cheap normally.

 

[RBB05]

I know many on the Left will bemoan or pooh pooh this development but I think it's pure genius of KRLA to make this change. This is a 100% correct decision which will actually prompt me to check Salem (SALM) out as an investment. Beck will bring more exposure to Prager and make KRLA a morning player in the talk game. This is dramatically encouraging news for KRLA.
KABC is the major loser having now officially fallen off the conservative map in the mornings. My, how the mighty have fallen. Handle's numbers will probably drop some as well since there'll be an entertaining alternative to KFI.
Personally, I'd like to see KRLA shed itself of Michael Medved and pick up someone fresher and less acerbic but I'm very happy to finally have someone to listen to 6-9 again.

I am on the left, but I think it is a good move for KRLA. I mean Glen is a nut who does things like accuse the Washington Post book reviewer of saying things he did not actually say in his review, but Beck's fans are hardcore loyalists and I think this is a strong move for KRLA.

 

[travisl5678]

Was Glenn Beck on an other station before the move to KRLA?If so which station is he on now.Also Salem has turned some of its conservative talkers to a Bussiness talk format a few years ago.Here is a link to one of those stations website http://www.kdow.biz/cms/index.php.Could this format work in LA?

 

[Shoot From Hip]

He was on KGIL-AM most recently if memory serves. Though he's not on in the market currently.

 

[WTFman]

He was on KGIL-AM most recently if memory serves. Though he's not on in the market currently.

He can be heard (but not very well) on AM 760, KFMB San Diego, from 9-12 AM. Savage also can be heard on KFMB from 3-6 PM, but again not very well--depends on where you are and what sort of equipment you have to tune in with. Neither are in the L.A. market now and both should be since they're well known firebrands--leaders of the torchlight and pitchfork brigades.
Salem would never sign Savage since he's too over the top for them. None of the talk hosts on Salem will have anything to do with Savage since he's regarded as unreliable and a loose cannon. I'd like to see him in L.A. on a good signal for once. He's good at stirring pots.

 

[JonIrenicus]

I know many on the Left will bemoan or pooh pooh this development but I think it's pure genius of KRLA to make this change. This is a 100% correct decision which will actually prompt me to check Salem (SALM) out as an investment. Beck will bring more exposure to Prager and make KRLA a morning player in the talk game. This is dramatically encouraging news for KRLA.
KABC is the major loser having now officially fallen off the conservative map in the mornings. My, how the mighty have fallen. Handle's numbers will probably drop some as well since there'll be an entertaining alternative to KFI.
Personally, I'd like to see KRLA shed itself of Michael Medved and pick up someone fresher and less acerbic but I'm very happy to finally have someone to listen to 6-9 again.

I was worried by the Beck news, he is a popular clown, but a clown just the same. At least he will not take the spot of the main lineup. As to wanted to get rid of Medved... and replace him with who?

Medved is the best thing going in his time slot. Acerbic? In what way? I really want to know what kind of mind allows someone to come to such a judgement.

 

[nmoore6676]

I know many on the Left will bemoan or pooh pooh this development but I think it's pure genius of KRLA to make this change. This is a 100% correct decision which will actually prompt me to check Salem (SALM) out as an investment. Beck will bring more exposure to Prager and make KRLA a morning player in the talk game. This is dramatically encouraging news for KRLA.
KABC is the major loser having now officially fallen off the conservative map in the mornings. My, how the mighty have fallen. Handle's numbers will probably drop some as well since there'll be an entertaining alternative to KFI.
Personally, I'd like to see KRLA shed itself of Michael Medved and pick up someone fresher and less acerbic but I'm very happy to finally have someone to listen to 6-9 again.

I was worried by the Beck news, he is a popular clown, but a clown just the same. At least he will not take the spot of the main lineup. As to wanted to get rid of Medved... and replace him with who?

Medved is the best thing going in his time slot. Acerbic? In what way? I really want to know what kind of mind allows someone to come to such a judgement.

Beck may be a clown and he himself will tell you so but within all of the merriment he gives out thought provoking tidbits of info. And Beck will segue nicely into Dennis Prager who is anything but fun but undeniably thought provoking.

I would say that Medved is in fact acerbic, so why you would question that makes me shake my head, perhaps looking up the word might be in order. Michael Medved is not as acerbic as say Michael Savage or Mark Levin but certainly he is within the range of the definition found in my Funk and Wagnalls.

He was on KGIL-AM most recently if memory serves. Though he's not on in the market currently.

He can be heard (but not very well) on AM 760, KFMB San Diego, from 9-12 AM. Savage also can be heard on KFMB from 3-6 PM, but again not very well--depends on where you are and what sort of equipment you have to tune in with. Neither are in the L.A. market now and both should be since they're well known firebrands--leaders of the torchlight and pitchfork brigades.
Salem would never sign Savage since he's too over the top for them. None of the talk hosts on Salem will have anything to do with Savage since he's regarded as unreliable and a loose cannon. I'd like to see him in L.A. on a good signal for once. He's good at stirring pots.

Michael Savage was in fact on KRLA for several years until they dropped him in favor of Dennis Miller. I recall that because I had a boss who listened to Savage and he often gave me a ride when we had worked later than usual. Later he was on the AM1260 News Talk experiment. Glenn Beck also wound up for a time on KGIL (1260) after being dropped when KLAA went Sports.

 

[JonIrenicus]

I know many on the Left will bemoan or pooh pooh this development but I think it's pure genius of KRLA to make this change. This is a 100% correct decision which will actually prompt me to check Salem (SALM) out as an investment. Beck will bring more exposure to Prager and make KRLA a morning player in the talk game. This is dramatically encouraging news for KRLA.
KABC is the major loser having now officially fallen off the conservative map in the mornings. My, how the mighty have fallen. Handle's numbers will probably drop some as well since there'll be an entertaining alternative to KFI.
Personally, I'd like to see KRLA shed itself of Michael Medved and pick up someone fresher and less acerbic but I'm very happy to finally have someone to listen to 6-9 again.

I was worried by the Beck news, he is a popular clown, but a clown just the same. At least he will not take the spot of the main lineup. As to wanted to get rid of Medved... and replace him with who?

Medved is the best thing going in his time slot. Acerbic? In what way? I really want to know what kind of mind allows someone to come to such a judgement.

Beck may be a clown and he himself will tell you so but within all of the merriment he gives out thought provoking tidbits of info. And Beck will segue nicely into Dennis Prager who is anything but fun but undeniably thought provoking.

I would say that Medved is in fact acerbic, so why you would question that makes me shake my head, perhaps looking up the word might be in order. Michael Medved is not as acerbic as say Michael Savage or Mark Levin but certainly he is within the range of the definition found in my Funk and Wagnalls.

I know what acerbic means, and that is not what I get from Michael. If his trying to argue sloppily held beliefs out of people qualifies as acerbic, then he is definitely not for you.

You still have Hannity who argues stupidly, or Beck who argues crazily. I think you are right though, he is not a ratings leader, it may not be what most people want to hear. Hence higher Hannity ratings. But I submit that that is not a knock of Michael, but on the listening population.


His arguments are objectively superior and more reasonable than a Hannity or Beck. That this is lost on people is their flaw, not his.

 

[nmoore6676]

I know many on the Left will bemoan or pooh pooh this development but I think it's pure genius of KRLA to make this change. This is a 100% correct decision which will actually prompt me to check Salem (SALM) out as an investment. Beck will bring more exposure to Prager and make KRLA a morning player in the talk game. This is dramatically encouraging news for KRLA.
KABC is the major loser having now officially fallen off the conservative map in the mornings. My, how the mighty have fallen. Handle's numbers will probably drop some as well since there'll be an entertaining alternative to KFI.
Personally, I'd like to see KRLA shed itself of Michael Medved and pick up someone fresher and less acerbic but I'm very happy to finally have someone to listen to 6-9 again.

I was worried by the Beck news, he is a popular clown, but a clown just the same. At least he will not take the spot of the main lineup. As to wanted to get rid of Medved... and replace him with who?

Medved is the best thing going in his time slot. Acerbic? In what way? I really want to know what kind of mind allows someone to come to such a judgement.

Beck may be a clown and he himself will tell you so but within all of the merriment he gives out thought provoking tidbits of info. And Beck will segue nicely into Dennis Prager who is anything but fun but undeniably thought provoking.

I would say that Medved is in fact acerbic, so why you would question that makes me shake my head, perhaps looking up the word might be in order. Michael Medved is not as acerbic as say Michael Savage or Mark Levin but certainly he is within the range of the definition found in my Funk and Wagnalls.

I know what acerbic means, and that is not what I get from Michael. If his trying to argue sloppily held beliefs out of people qualifies as acerbic, then he is definitely not for you.

You still have Hannity who argues stupidly, or Beck who argues crazily. I think you are right though, he is not a ratings leader, it may not be what most people want to hear. Hence higher Hannity ratings. But I submit that that is not a knock of Michael, but on the listening population.


His arguments are objectively superior and more reasonable than a Hannity or Beck. That this is lost on people is their flaw, not his.

I think that we differ on the extended meaning of acerbic, to me it means just acid in tone or mood but I do not see that as bad and neither do I see Micheal Medved as bad, maybe not five star but not bad. I am not sure where to place Hannity except to file him under loud and irascible.

In addition to being acerbic Savage is also a whiner and that I do find objectionable. Mark Levin is probably OK as a columnist but a little hard on the ears via radio.

I do take exception to anyone who belittles Glenn Beck though because no matter how you see his politics you can not deny that he does research his topics and he provides his sources for his listeners. His TV show is less comedy and more like a poly sci course, as I remember from my undergraduate college years. His radio show on the other hand still has the comedy elements which made it successful. As an early morning show it appeals to listeners more than say Dennis Prager who to me is the ultimate radio lecturer on the air today. However as a wake up show it wouldn't fly and neither would Beck if he went into his professorial character for his time slot on radio.

Los Angeles has the ultimate example of radio talk show buffoonery with John and Ken on KFI. They have built their career, as a duo, by poking fun at the foibles of politicians and the stupidity of government as it is practiced, especially in California which makes it the best place for their show to air. Whether they are sincere, many say they are not, or whether you agree with their stance you can not help tuning in to see what they are up to.

 

[RBB05]

I know many on the Left will bemoan or pooh pooh this development but I think it's pure genius of KRLA to make this change. This is a 100% correct decision which will actually prompt me to check Salem (SALM) out as an investment. Beck will bring more exposure to Prager and make KRLA a morning player in the talk game. This is dramatically encouraging news for KRLA.
KABC is the major loser having now officially fallen off the conservative map in the mornings. My, how the mighty have fallen. Handle's numbers will probably drop some as well since there'll be an entertaining alternative to KFI.
Personally, I'd like to see KRLA shed itself of Michael Medved and pick up someone fresher and less acerbic but I'm very happy to finally have someone to listen to 6-9 again.

I was worried by the Beck news, he is a popular clown, but a clown just the same. At least he will not take the spot of the main lineup. As to wanted to get rid of Medved... and replace him with who?

Medved is the best thing going in his time slot. Acerbic? In what way? I really want to know what kind of mind allows someone to come to such a judgement.

Beck may be a clown and he himself will tell you so but within all of the merriment he gives out thought provoking tidbits of info. And Beck will segue nicely into Dennis Prager who is anything but fun but undeniably thought provoking.

I would say that Medved is in fact acerbic, so why you would question that makes me shake my head, perhaps looking up the word might be in order. Michael Medved is not as acerbic as say Michael Savage or Mark Levin but certainly he is within the range of the definition found in my Funk and Wagnalls.

I know what acerbic means, and that is not what I get from Michael. If his trying to argue sloppily held beliefs out of people qualifies as acerbic, then he is definitely not for you.

You still have Hannity who argues stupidly, or Beck who argues crazily. I think you are right though, he is not a ratings leader, it may not be what most people want to hear. Hence higher Hannity ratings. But I submit that that is not a knock of Michael, but on the listening population.


His arguments are objectively superior and more reasonable than a Hannity or Beck. That this is lost on people is their flaw, not his.

I think that we differ on the extended meaning of acerbic, to me it means just acid in tone or mood but I do not see that as bad and neither do I see Micheal Medved as bad, maybe not five star but not bad. I am not sure where to place Hannity except to file him under loud and irascible.

In addition to being acerbic Savage is also a whiner and that I do find objectionable. Mark Levin is probably OK as a columnist but a little hard on the ears via radio.

I do take exception to anyone who belittles Glenn Beck though because no matter how you see his politics you can not deny that he does research his topics and he provides his sources for his listeners. His TV show is less comedy and more like a poly sci course, as I remember from my undergraduate college years. His radio show on the other hand still has the comedy elements which made it successful. As an early morning show it appeals to listeners more than say Dennis Prager who to me is the ultimate radio lecturer on the air today. However as a wake up show it wouldn't fly and neither would Beck if he went into his professorial character for his time slot on radio.

Los Angeles has the ultimate example of radio talk show buffoonery with John and Ken on KFI. They have built their career, as a duo, by poking fun at the foibles of politicians and the stupidity of government as it is practiced, especially in California which makes it the best place for their show to air. Whether they are sincere, many say they are not, or whether you agree with their stance you can not help tuning in to see what they are up to.

If only his homework and research were checked before he rattled it off. Politics aside, Monday he pontificated that the Obama dministration just gave $20 million to a Brazilian petroleum company, money that could have been used here. What the Glennster failed to do his homework on was that the loan was approved in 2008. Mr. Obama was not yet president. Glen needs to stick to his current undertaking, that we are all headed for a communist, marxist, Stalinist fall. At least that way he can hypothosize without having to rely on facts.

 

[WTFman]

I know many on the Left will bemoan or pooh pooh this development but I think it's pure genius of KRLA to make this change. This is a 100% correct decision which will actually prompt me to check Salem (SALM) out as an investment. Beck will bring more exposure to Prager and make KRLA a morning player in the talk game. This is dramatically encouraging news for KRLA.
KABC is the major loser having now officially fallen off the conservative map in the mornings. My, how the mighty have fallen. Handle's numbers will probably drop some as well since there'll be an entertaining alternative to KFI.
Personally, I'd like to see KRLA shed itself of Michael Medved and pick up someone fresher and less acerbic but I'm very happy to finally have someone to listen to 6-9 again.

I was worried by the Beck news, he is a popular clown, but a clown just the same. At least he will not take the spot of the main lineup. As to wanted to get rid of Medved... and replace him with who?

Medved is the best thing going in his time slot. Acerbic? In what way? I really want to know what kind of mind allows someone to come to such a judgement.

Assuming you "really do want to know what kind of mind allows someone to come to such a judgement"...
although Medved annoys me sometimes, I do occasionally listen to him. Sometimes he's pretty good. What
Medved does that drives me away is often demonstrated in segments involving Conspiracy Day (or
Conspiracy Hour, whatever). He takes calls from people who try to convince him, for instance, that the
country is in danger from the Trilateralists, the Bilderbergers, or that Obama's birth certificate is
suspect, etc. Whatever your views on these subjects, it would be reasonable to hope for some sort of "fair
hearing", but Medved very often cuts them off very quickly and then attributes straw man and bogus elements to the arguments of these callers--making them appear foolish and uninformed whackos--while, in fact, it is Medved who shows any good conspiracy nut that it is frequently He Himself who has not adequately explored the "conspiracy theory" in question. Why any intelligent conspiratorialist would call him I've never figured out. His contempt for thinking outside the box makes him small in stature. He lines up a lot of easy targets and shoots them down like some smug, showy, intellectual gunslinger with little regard for truth or fairness. Sometimes he ridicules an idea too close to my heart in ways I find hard to forgive. He's free to behave that way and I'm free not to listen. Kapeesh?

 

[nmoore6676]

I know many on the Left will bemoan or pooh pooh this development but I think it's pure genius of KRLA to make this change. This is a 100% correct decision which will actually prompt me to check Salem (SALM) out as an investment. Beck will bring more exposure to Prager and make KRLA a morning player in the talk game. This is dramatically encouraging news for KRLA.
KABC is the major loser having now officially fallen off the conservative map in the mornings. My, how the mighty have fallen. Handle's numbers will probably drop some as well since there'll be an entertaining alternative to KFI.
Personally, I'd like to see KRLA shed itself of Michael Medved and pick up someone fresher and less acerbic but I'm very happy to finally have someone to listen to 6-9 again.

I was worried by the Beck news, he is a popular clown, but a clown just the same. At least he will not take the spot of the main lineup. As to wanted to get rid of Medved... and replace him with who?

Medved is the best thing going in his time slot. Acerbic? In what way? I really want to know what kind of mind allows someone to come to such a judgement.

Beck may be a clown and he himself will tell you so but within all of the merriment he gives out thought provoking tidbits of info. And Beck will segue nicely into Dennis Prager who is anything but fun but undeniably thought provoking.

I would say that Medved is in fact acerbic, so why you would question that makes me shake my head, perhaps looking up the word might be in order. Michael Medved is not as acerbic as say Michael Savage or Mark Levin but certainly he is within the range of the definition found in my Funk and Wagnalls.

I know what acerbic means, and that is not what I get from Michael. If his trying to argue sloppily held beliefs out of people qualifies as acerbic, then he is definitely not for you.

You still have Hannity who argues stupidly, or Beck who argues crazily. I think you are right though, he is not a ratings leader, it may not be what most people want to hear. Hence higher Hannity ratings. But I submit that that is not a knock of Michael, but on the listening population.


His arguments are objectively superior and more reasonable than a Hannity or Beck. That this is lost on people is their flaw, not his.

I think that we differ on the extended meaning of acerbic, to me it means just acid in tone or mood but I do not see that as bad and neither do I see Micheal Medved as bad, maybe not five star but not bad. I am not sure where to place Hannity except to file him under loud and irascible.

In addition to being acerbic Savage is also a whiner and that I do find objectionable. Mark Levin is probably OK as a columnist but a little hard on the ears via radio.

I do take exception to anyone who belittles Glenn Beck though because no matter how you see his politics you can not deny that he does research his topics and he provides his sources for his listeners. His TV show is less comedy and more like a poly sci course, as I remember from my undergraduate college years. His radio show on the other hand still has the comedy elements which made it successful. As an early morning show it appeals to listeners more than say Dennis Prager who to me is the ultimate radio lecturer on the air today. However as a wake up show it wouldn't fly and neither would Beck if he went into his professorial character for his time slot on radio.

Los Angeles has the ultimate example of radio talk show buffoonery with John and Ken on KFI. They have built their career, as a duo, by poking fun at the foibles of politicians and the stupidity of government as it is practiced, especially in California which makes it the best place for their show to air. Whether they are sincere, many say they are not, or whether you agree with their stance you can not help tuning in to see what they are up to.

If only his homework and research were checked before he rattled it off. Politics aside, Monday he pontificated that the Obama dministration just gave $20 million to a Brazilian petroleum company, money that could have been used here. What the Glennster failed to do his homework on was that the loan was approved in 2008. Mr. Obama was not yet president. Glen needs to stick to his current undertaking, that we are all headed for a communist, marxist, Stalinist fall. At least that way he can hypothosize without having to rely on facts.

The amount was 20 billion, not million, and the announcement came earlier this year though the process may have been proposed earlier. In any event what Glenn said on air was in fact true but if he is wr4ong and you can show that will correct himself, he has done it in the past and swears to continue.

As to his other "facts" I take notes and sometimes even sit with a computer on line to check his statements as he goes and he encourages his listeners to do so. I myself had a problem in that Beck is a convert to Mormonism and there is a prophecy attributed to Joseph Smith that is pretty much the path that Beck is going down right now. However I have been able to follow from other sources that his take on history is pretty much right on. And I now understand why my grandparents and my parents held Franklin Roosevelt in such low esteem, a lot of whitewashing has been done on his terms in office.

The bottom line is that we can not just sit and listen to anyone on radio or TV and in the print media, accepting them as always correct, because they all have an agenda. We should all be doing out own research and learn on our own because mass media is a dangerous thing if no one is checking them.

 

[RBB05]

I know many on the Left will bemoan or pooh pooh this development but I think it's pure genius of KRLA to make this change. This is a 100% correct decision which will actually prompt me to check Salem (SALM) out as an investment. Beck will bring more exposure to Prager and make KRLA a morning player in the talk game. This is dramatically encouraging news for KRLA.
KABC is the major loser having now officially fallen off the conservative map in the mornings. My, how the mighty have fallen. Handle's numbers will probably drop some as well since there'll be an entertaining alternative to KFI.
Personally, I'd like to see KRLA shed itself of Michael Medved and pick up someone fresher and less acerbic but I'm very happy to finally have someone to listen to 6-9 again.

I was worried by the Beck news, he is a popular clown, but a clown just the same. At least he will not take the spot of the main lineup. As to wanted to get rid of Medved... and replace him with who?

Medved is the best thing going in his time slot. Acerbic? In what way? I really want to know what kind of mind allows someone to come to such a judgement.

Beck may be a clown and he himself will tell you so but within all of the merriment he gives out thought provoking tidbits of info. And Beck will segue nicely into Dennis Prager who is anything but fun but undeniably thought provoking.

I would say that Medved is in fact acerbic, so why you would question that makes me shake my head, perhaps looking up the word might be in order. Michael Medved is not as acerbic as say Michael Savage or Mark Levin but certainly he is within the range of the definition found in my Funk and Wagnalls.

I know what acerbic means, and that is not what I get from Michael. If his trying to argue sloppily held beliefs out of people qualifies as acerbic, then he is definitely not for you.

You still have Hannity who argues stupidly, or Beck who argues crazily. I think you are right though, he is not a ratings leader, it may not be what most people want to hear. Hence higher Hannity ratings. But I submit that that is not a knock of Michael, but on the listening population.


His arguments are objectively superior and more reasonable than a Hannity or Beck. That this is lost on people is their flaw, not his.

I think that we differ on the extended meaning of acerbic, to me it means just acid in tone or mood but I do not see that as bad and neither do I see Micheal Medved as bad, maybe not five star but not bad. I am not sure where to place Hannity except to file him under loud and irascible.

In addition to being acerbic Savage is also a whiner and that I do find objectionable. Mark Levin is probably OK as a columnist but a little hard on the ears via radio.

I do take exception to anyone who belittles Glenn Beck though because no matter how you see his politics you can not deny that he does research his topics and he provides his sources for his listeners. His TV show is less comedy and more like a poly sci course, as I remember from my undergraduate college years. His radio show on the other hand still has the comedy elements which made it successful. As an early morning show it appeals to listeners more than say Dennis Prager who to me is the ultimate radio lecturer on the air today. However as a wake up show it wouldn't fly and neither would Beck if he went into his professorial character for his time slot on radio.

Los Angeles has the ultimate example of radio talk show buffoonery with John and Ken on KFI. They have built their career, as a duo, by poking fun at the foibles of politicians and the stupidity of government as it is practiced, especially in California which makes it the best place for their show to air. Whether they are sincere, many say they are not, or whether you agree with their stance you can not help tuning in to see what they are up to.

If only his homework and research were checked before he rattled it off. Politics aside, Monday he pontificated that the Obama dministration just gave $20 million to a Brazilian petroleum company, money that could have been used here. What the Glennster failed to do his homework on was that the loan was approved in 2008. Mr. Obama was not yet president. Glen needs to stick to his current undertaking, that we are all headed for a communist, marxist, Stalinist fall. At least that way he can hypothosize without having to rely on facts.

The amount was 20 billion, not million, and the announcement came earlier this year though the process may have been proposed earlier. In any event what Glenn said on air was in fact true but if he is wr4ong and you can show that will correct himself, he has done it in the past and swears to continue.

As to his other "facts" I take notes and sometimes even sit with a computer on line to check his statements as he goes and he encourages his listeners to do so. I myself had a problem in that Beck is a convert to Mormonism and there is a prophecy attributed to Joseph Smith that is pretty much the path that Beck is going down right now. However I have been able to follow from other sources that his take on history is pretty much right on. And I now understand why my grandparents and my parents held Franklin Roosevelt in such low esteem, a lot of whitewashing has been done on his terms in office.

The bottom line is that we can not just sit and listen to anyone on radio or TV and in the print media, accepting them as always correct, because they all have an agenda. We should all be doing out own research and learn on our own because mass media is a dangerous thing if no one is checking them.

you are correct...I mistyped,...it was $20 BILLION. Still it was Bush's loan. I agree that whether it is Beck, Medved, or the clowns on 640, people need to do their own homework. Beck lost me yesterday, when on his TV show he canonized Joseph McCarthy.

 

[nmoore6676]

you are correct...I mistyped,...it was $20 BILLION. Still it was Bush's loan. I agree that whether it is Beck, Medved, or the clowns on 640, people need to do their own homework. Beck lost me yesterday, when on his TV show he canonized Joseph McCarthy.

I know I am old enough to remember when a million dollars was a LOT of money. So wrapping your mind around billions and now we are talking trillions is difficult to say the least. I can only trace the $20 billion back to this year but you may well be right and were you to let Beck know he would acknowledge that.

I am old enough to have a fuzzy memory (I would have been maybe 4, 5, or possibly 6) of the McCarthy hearings. But I will have to read up on them more to believe his talk on TV yesterday. But like I said he has explained a lot of the animosity my parents had about FDR so he could be right about McCarthy too. I say might because I don't know enough to go one way or the other.

The thing that always got me about that era and the black lists is that they were condemning people for being in what once had been a legal political party in the US. That in my feeble mind has always been like if they were to deem either that the Democrats or the Republicans were subversive and then start prosecuting, or persecuting, people for having been members. So on yesterday's show I need a lot of convincing but I am at least open to accepting it once I've proved it in my mind, if I can.

Again we must all take that step before we believe the voices coming out of our radios and TVs. Besides the entertainment we should accept these guys, all of them, as the step off point of a journey to personal learning. That is how College professors once taught, to start you on a journey, but not to show you the final destination.

 

[rapfanatic]

Hmmm...

 

[LKellerIII]

you are correct...I mistyped,...it was $20 BILLION. Still it was Bush's loan. I agree that whether it is Beck, Medved, or the clowns on 640, people need to do their own homework. Beck lost me yesterday, when on his TV show he canonized Joseph McCarthy.

I know I am old enough to remember when a million dollars was a LOT of money. So wrapping your mind around billions and now we are talking trillions is difficult to say the least. I can only trace the $20 billion back to this year but you may well be right and were you to let Beck know he would acknowledge that.

I am old enough to have a fuzzy memory (I would have been maybe 4, 5, or possibly 6) of the McCarthy hearings. But I will have to read up on them more to believe his talk on TV yesterday. But like I said he has explained a lot of the animosity my parents had about FDR so he could be right about McCarthy too. I say might because I don't know enough to go one way or the other.

The thing that always got me about that era and the black lists is that they were condemning people for being in what once had been a legal political party in the US. That in my feeble mind has always been like if they were to deem either that the Democrats or the Republicans were subversive and then start prosecuting, or persecuting, people for having been members. So on yesterday's show I need a lot of convincing but I am at least open to accepting it once I've proved it in my mind, if I can.

Again we must all take that step before we believe the voices coming out of our radios and TVs. Besides the entertainment we should accept these guys, all of them, as the step off point of a journey to personal learning. That is how College professors once taught, to start you on a journey, but not to show you the final destination.

You mean with all the nutty stuff Glenn Beck says, he didn't "lose you" until he canonized Joe McCarthy? Interesting...

I was also 3 or 4 during McCarthy's reign as the chief Commie-hunter, but I remember my parents talking about it later. Like most historical events, it has been reported in black and white, without shades of gray. The facts are - many innocent people were wrongly accused of being Communist by McCarthy in the Senate, and by the less famous Congressmen on the House Un-American Activities Committee. People were thrown out of their jobs for being suspected of Communist leanings, and in a few extreme cases, people went to prison. It was a dark chapter in American history.

But people like Beck can find ways to defend McCarthy because there actually were Communist spies infiltrating American government. The problem was, McCarthy was a raging alcoholic nut-job who didn't really know what he was doing. He was never successful at exposing the real Commies - just the "fellow traveler" types who were left-wingers, but generally innocent of any wrong-doing.

To bring it back to radio - one of those accused of Communist sympathies was Averill Berman, a show-biz labor organizer who later found employment as soul station KGFJ's news anchor in the 1960s - by virtue of his booming bass-baritone voice.
And to put a sensationalist twist on it, Berman was murdered in 1969 by KNXT (Channel 2) sports anchor Stan Duke. Berman was apparently the lover of Duke's estranged wife.

 

[nmoore6676]

you are correct...I mistyped,...it was $20 BILLION. Still it was Bush's loan. I agree that whether it is Beck, Medved, or the clowns on 640, people need to do their own homework. Beck lost me yesterday, when on his TV show he canonized Joseph McCarthy.

I know I am old enough to remember when a million dollars was a LOT of money. So wrapping your mind around billions and now we are talking trillions is difficult to say the least. I can only trace the $20 billion back to this year but you may well be right and were you to let Beck know he would acknowledge that.

I am old enough to have a fuzzy memory (I would have been maybe 4, 5, or possibly 6) of the McCarthy hearings. But I will have to read up on them more to believe his talk on TV yesterday. But like I said he has explained a lot of the animosity my parents had about FDR so he could be right about McCarthy too. I say might because I don't know enough to go one way or the other.

The thing that always got me about that era and the black lists is that they were condemning people for being in what once had been a legal political party in the US. That in my feeble mind has always been like if they were to deem either that the Democrats or the Republicans were subversive and then start prosecuting, or persecuting, people for having been members. So on yesterday's show I need a lot of convincing but I am at least open to accepting it once I've proved it in my mind, if I can.

Again we must all take that step before we believe the voices coming out of our radios and TVs. Besides the entertainment we should accept these guys, all of them, as the step off point of a journey to personal learning. That is how College professors once taught, to start you on a journey, but not to show you the final destination.

You mean with all the nutty stuff Glenn Beck says, he didn't "lose you" until he canonized Joe McCarthy? Interesting...

I was also 3 or 4 during McCarthy's reign as the chief Commie-hunter, but I remember my parents talking about it later. Like most historical events, it has been reported in black and white, without shades of gray. The facts are - many innocent people were wrongly accused of being Communist by McCarthy in the Senate, and by the less famous Congressmen on the House Un-American Activities Committee. People were thrown out of their jobs for being suspected of Communist leanings, and in a few extreme cases, people went to prison. It was a dark chapter in American history.

But people like Beck can find ways to defend McCarthy because there actually were Communist spies infiltrating American government. The problem was, McCarthy was a raging alcoholic nut-job who didn't really know what he was doing. He was never successful at exposing the real Commies - just the "fellow traveler" types who were left-wingers, but generally innocent of any wrong-doing.

To bring it back to radio - one of those accused of Communist sympathies was Averill Berman, a show-biz labor organizer who later found employment as soul station KGFJ's news anchor in the 1960s - by virtue of his booming bass-baritone voice.
And to put a sensationalist twist on it, Berman was murdered in 1969 by KNXT (Channel 2) sports anchor Stan Duke. Berman was apparently the lover of Duke's estranged wife.

I won't accept the word nutty about anything Glenn says because unlike you I have taken the time to follow up on it. However I had reservations about lionizing Joseph McCarthy because I have done other reading on the history of Communism in the US. I also have read a book by Joseph Kennedy painting Stalin and the USSR in a more acceptable light in order to sway American opinion prior to WWII while Nazi Germany was ascending in power and taking over most of Europe. So I have a problem with persecuting people for believing in something that once was accepted and even encouraged.

Beck may have wanted to make point about the later Cold War period and spying was an issue then (remember the TV show "I Led Three Lives"). But to elevate McCarthy to heroic status was over the top to me. Like I have said I will have to do a lot of research and study if I am to ever accept that, but I do research all that Beck says and other than that he passes muster with me.

I would apply the same kind of vetting to all talk show hosts from either end of the political spectrum. Rush has mad a fortune by passing a lot of hot air and to some extent they all do it because that is the model they have to follow in order to succeed. If they didn't Dennis Prager could be number 1 and Ed Schultz is just Rush in a mirror image (left instead of right).