Beck has at times spoken against violence, but he more often forecasts it, warning that “it is only a matter of time before an actual crazy person really does something stupid.” Most every broadcast has some violent imagery: “The clock is ticking. . . . The war is just beginning. . . . Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government. . . . You have to be prepared to take rocks to the head. . . . The other side is attacking. . . . There is a coup going on. . . . Grab a torch! . . . Drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers. . . . They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered. . . . They are putting a gun to America’s head. . . . Hold these people responsible.”

Beck has prophesied darkly to his millions of followers that we are reaching “a point where the people will have exhausted all their options. When that happens, look out.” One night on Fox, discussing the case of a man who killed 10 people, Beck suggested such things were inevitable. “If you’re a conservative, you are called a racist, you want to starve children,” he said. “And every time they do speak out, they are shut down by political correctness. How do you not have those people turn into that guy?”

So you think the only way to have a country is an ultra conservative version of America?

The founding fathers were not conservatives.

Plenty of public figures get death threats. Doesn’t make it right.

He asks for most of his criticism. O’Reilly is sometimes a blow hard. However, he does hold people accountable. Beck is a crybaby and a drama king. I do not believe his information he is ‘educating’ us with is correct.

He is hunting progressives in the government and exposing them.

He says that he will defend himself if you try to disarm hm or silence him, both acts of violence AGAINST HIM.

He states that politics is NOT a game anymore. He has had death threats

There is a coup going on. The Administration is centralizing power within the executive and has assume unconstitutional powers unheard of.

He is right. The republic is over if all of the financial “reform” fill is enacted and enforced. When combined with HCR, it is the most intrusive act of government ever.

O’Reilly doesn’t educate people. He’s a blowhard.

Glenn Beck hasn’t gone and said to shoot someone in the head. However, he has said stuff that incites others:

Just listen to Glenn Beck:

* Progressives “are sucking the blood out of the republic” and are “gonna start getting more and more violent.”

* “To the day I die, I am going to be a progressive hunter.”

* “[Y]ou will have to shoot me in the forehead before you take away my gun” and “before I acquiesce and be silent.”

* “This game is for keeps”; “[Y]ou can shoot me in the head … but there will be 10 others that line up.”

* “There is a coup going on. There is a stealing of America”; “God help us in an emergency.”‘

And don’t forget about the unhinged response when health care reform was passed in March: “Get down on your knees and pray. Pray. It’s September 11th all over again, except that we didn’t have the collapsing buildings.” After financial reform passed last week, Beck told his audience, “Your republic is over.”

It doesn’t have to be a direct order. In fact, I have heard him tout the Ghandi like about violence, all along while he sows the seeds for people to do otherwise.

I listen to Beck almost on a daily basis. I know what he does. I think it is UnAmerican. I would label him an O’Reilly pinhead almost daily. I don’t feel that way about O’Reilly.

And the President’s own words and actions, if they had been done by a white President, would have been called racist. Mimicking his daughter was in poor taste. Funny, but, in poor taste and he apologized. However, it was Obama who first brought his daughter’s comments into the political fray, in yet another inane personal anecdote.

Glenn Beck, while inflammatory, is accurate on the basics and probably on the whole, at least 95% of the time. He’s the one demanding that other journalist prove him wrong. Nothing yet….

I think all TV personalities have a moral responsibility to not incite violence or say things that might lead others to act accordingly. I don’t think Maddow’s eye rolliing is quite the same thing, even though it might be as equally annoying as all the screaming and crying.

So its the how and and what he says I would criticize, rather than his right to bash a particular organization. I rather like some of the organizations that the Tides Foundation sponsors or has sponsored. And I understand why Glenn Beck doesn’t like them. For example, I am glad Media Matters is out there. It provides another voice. I like the Pew Institute.

Glenn Beck is over the top. For me, he is high comedy. For someone like the man in the article, he is a catalyst. I think anyone who reaches out to the public, from blogs to TV and radio has a personal responsibility to attempt to be truthful, to the best of their ability and to consider who might be reading or listening.

Beck fails the responsibility sniff test, in my book. Just the fact that he called the president a racist and mimicked his daughter makes my point.

But, that is not the point here. The point is whether Beck has the right to criticize the Tides on his TV show and should have any particular constraints put on him in the course of that criticism. And, if some whacko watches Beck and then decides to take action on his own, is Beck responsible for that action? Well, he certainly has the right to criticize. And the Tides, through their public involvement in social change (and political change by extension) certainly cannot claim to be exempted from criticism. To put the shoe on the other foot, Beck, through his advocacy of a point of view, is also opening himself up to legitimate criticsim by those who do not agree — like you do, Moon, very often, as is quite within your rights. So, what it comes down to in my opinion is whether you can accuse someone like Beck of being the cause of violence by a third person just because of the vehemence of his own arguments pro or con on a particular issue. I don’t see where you can do that unless Beck actually calls for such violence. Then it becomes a radically different story. Otherwise Beck is only exercising his constitutional rights of protest and criticism. One of the problems I see in our contemporary society is that political criticism is too often being cast as “hate” and that the “hate” is then considered a possible cause for violence by a third party. We keep that up and then translate it into restraints on speech and we will all be the losers.

I personally do not watch television, being about as personally put off by all the screaming back and forth as Mo Davis obviously is. When I see Beck, it is only on this blog or on other blogs with imbedded videos. Do I myself wish he would tone down his act in some cases? Sure do. There are times when he applies a hurt, in my view to, his own intentioned case. I feel the same way about Maddow, especially when she directs that demeaning smirk into the camera and begins to drum her fingers on the desk. But I have absolutely no authority to try to dictate to either one of them how to run their shows. The ultimate judge is audience, and, from the ratings, Beck’s audience is staying with him. I presume the same for Rachel.

Let us suppose that you personally directed a communication to Beck telling him in no uncertain terms that you disagree strongly with his broadcast modus operandi and demand that he cool his jets. The answer back? Well, probably the same answer I see here at times when somebody presumes to tell the Moonhowler how to run her blog. And I believe both of you would be right. His TV show. Your blog. First Amendment rules. You don’t like how I do my business, you can always go elsewhere.