Glenn Beck in the Context of Censorship

 

Daniel J. Neumann

Professor Zerbe (Rhetorical Theory)

Final Paper

April 15^th, 2011

Glenn Beck in the Context of Censorship

Glenn Beck, for better or for worse, influences perception in America. He commentates on political affairs on Fox News. Through the course of his program, he has made threats towards ideas, entities, and individuals. The timeliness of my essay was something I couldn’t anticipate when I choose this topic. Glenn Beck’s contract with Fox News is due to expire later this year. “More than 400 Fox advertisers told the company they did not want their commercials on Beck’s show. Beck’s advertisers were dominated by financial services firms, many touting gold as an investment” (Bauder). It seems as though my conclusion, that society, not the government, ought to censor Glenn Beck by boycotting viewing it, has appealed to advertisers—the financial foundation of Beck’s programming. (Of course, they came to this conclusion long before I began my essay). For the purpose of following my evaluation, I’d encourage you to pretend Glenn Beck will continue to create media (which is plausible, even without a contract for the Glenn Beck program on Fox News).

 To begin my discussion of whether or not society ought to censor Beck, I thought it appropriate to list some of his more inflammatory quotes, with a brief examination of the rhetorical devices he employs and possible contradictions:

“This is fascism. This is what happens when you merge special interests, corporations, and the government. This is what happens. And if people like you don’t take a stand... at some point, you know what poem keeps going through my mind is ‘First they came for the Jews.’ People, all of us are like, well, this news doesn’t really affect me. Well, I’m not a bondholder. Well, I’m not in the banking industry. Well, I’m not a big CEO. Well, I’m not on Wall Street. Well, I’m not a car dealer. I’m not an autoworker. Gang, at some point they're going to come for you.”—Glenn Beck, on closures of auto dealerships under the bankruptcy deals of GM and Chrysler, The Glenn Beck Program; June 10, 2009

Here, Beck rationalizes his claim with “guilt by association,” “false syllogism,” and “slippery slope” logic, while stylistically repeating a similar form when he evidences why people ought to be afraid of their government. He conflates the United States government with Nazi Germany by calling our political process fascism. He separates the syllogism with generalized warrants between the steps. If he didn’t it may read like this: “The American government is fascist. Nazis were fascist. The Nazi government came after the Jews. Jews are people. Thus, the American government will go after people.” You may have noticed some unreasonable assumptions in that logic (no. not that Jews are people!). By buffering the links to Beck’s chain of reasoning with sentencing “confirming” the belief with generalizations (in a reiterated package: “Well, I’m not so-and-so”), a trusting audience fails to catch the fallacy of logic.

“When do we ever run those who are bankrupting our country and literally stealing our children’s future out of town? Grab a torch.”— Glenn Beck, Fox News; January 6^th, 2010

The rhetoric metaphor of grabbing a torch—taken literally—directly incites rioting.

“Every night I get down on my knees and pray that Dennis Kucinich will burst into flames.”—Glenn Beck, in 2003

I’m tempted to believe that either Glenn Beck is making light of his Christian beliefs, or he sincerely prays that Dennis Kucinich will die. (Of course, I try not to create false dichotomies).

“I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong?”—Glenn Beck, responding to the question “What would people do for $50 million?” The Glenn Beck Program; May 17, 2005

For a man who claims he believes in non-violence, the rhetorical question of “Is it wrong to strangle Michael Moore?” seems misplaced. After all, in his “Pledge of Nonviolence,” (in which he quotes Martin Luther King) he vows “I denounce violence, regardless of ideological motivation” (Beck).

“African-American is a bogus, PC, made-up term. I mean, that’s not a race. Your ancestry is from Africa and now you live in America.”—Glenn Beck, on his radio show, Jan. 7, 2010

Calling the title of African-American as a “made-up term” and “politically correct” seems to (in Beck’s mind) qualify the idea that the title is therefore bogus. By those criteria, I might say, “The title, Conservative, is bogus. It’s just a bunch of people who’d like to conserve social norms.” Beck’s logic only sounds true in the morning haze of driving to work. It’s harder to catch his fallacy of argument on the radio, since most people don’t read over the transcripts to analyze what he is really implying and why. What would Glenn Beck prefer we call African Americans, Americans from African lineage or Africans who live in America as citizens? Perhaps he’d rather use another title.

“When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I’m just like, ‘Oh shut up’ I’m so sick of them because they’re always complaining.”—Glenn Beck on his radio show; Sept. 9, 2005

Beck doesn’t recognize that 9/11 victims typically get on television to mourn for their loss. That doesn’t necessarily mean they always complain about it. They may, in fact, mourn at an acceptable level.

“When you see the effects of what they’re doing to the economy, remember these words: We will survive. No—we’ll do better than survive, we will thrive. As long as these people are not in control. They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered!”—Glenn Beck, on FOX News; Nov. 3, 2009

Beck begins his prediction-scenario optimistically, but soon reveals that we will not survive as long as these people are in control. If Beck’s prophecy comes true, then to not overthrow the government would spell certain doom. This seems to contradict his pledge of nonviolence, where he wrote, “I denounce those who wish to tear down our system and rebuild it in their own image, whatever that image may be” (Beck).

“I could give a flying crap about the political process ... We’re an entertainment company.” —Glenn Beck, Forbes interview; April, 2010

Beck presents himself as a journalist and sometimes an educator with the “Fox News” watermark and chalkboard. He fools a lot of people. If I was Beck’s attorney, I’d advise him to mention that more often on his program.

“I am not a polarizing guy.”—Glenn Beck, to Jay Leno; December 19^th, 2009

I’d disagree. I think Glenn Beck’s “Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment” (his website’s motto) may be misinterpreted by less educated individuals. It is polarizing to claim that the government is coming to get you. Either you think the government is going to get you or you don’t. That, to me, seems polarizing.

I hope these quotes demonstrate Glenn Beck’s history. His favorite rhetorical devices seem to be slippery slope, false dichotomy, and guilt by association. His targets tend to be the United States Government, progressives, and liberal-minded personalities such as George Soros, Michael Moore, Barack Obama (which he called a racist), and Frances Fox Piven.

“These attacks have been based on rhetoric, rather than substance, and have incited threats of violence, rather than encouraging open debate… Glenn Beck has accused Professor Piven of creating a plan to ‘intentionally collapse our economic system,’ as reported by The New York Times; and he has included her in a list of the nine ‘most dangerous people’ in the world... We call on all parties to condemn the recent escalation of violent rhetoric, which does nothing to serve democracy” (American Sociological Association). Slander and written libel are not protected by the freedom of speech. The classical example is the constitution doesn’t protect the speech of a man who screams fire in a crowded movie theater when he knows there is no fire. The question becomes what was the original intent, the degree of inaccuracy, and the consequences of his Glenn Beck’s rhetoric. That’s a case for the courtroom. Regardless, though, this attack on one person exemplifies Beck’s potential to do harm.

With these instances of rhetorical violence in mind, should the American government censor Glenn Beck? How much good would it do? “While historically censorship has worked as expected—suppressing books and ideas or limiting their circulation—it now often ensures wider access to said books and ideas, thanks to the counter discourse of anticensorship. Despite differences in aim and attitude, prizing and censorship frequently achieve the same end result of greater publicity and symbolic capital” (Kidd 3). Kidd suggests that to censor any idea, book, show, etc. (even Glenn Beck) would simply elevate his popularity. People would see the attacks on him as evidence of a conspiracy by the United States Government to shut him up. I believe a censored Glenn Beck would become an ideological martyr, a symbol of perceived oppression to his expansive viewership. Because of the permanence of the internet, not even the government could wipe away all of Glenn Beck’s content. Because of the accessibility to the internet, Glenn Beck could never be completely silenced. (After all, WikiLeaks couldn’t be censored). Censoring Glenn Beck, therefore, wouldn’t effectively remove the vitriol language, but attract more attention towards it.

“Media repression is frequently the canary in a coal mine, suggesting that broader forces of corruption, political control and anti-democratic excesses are at work, or poised to expand their reach and influence” (Andelman 8). Although I run the risk of sliding down a slippery-slope-logical-fallacy, I must concede to Andelman’s point: Why is the government choosing what we ought not to hear, read, or see? If Glenn Beck is censored today, what might be censored tomorrow? Do we want an entity with an agenda to filter our content? A highly celebrated document, which defined what the term, “free society,” means, argues no: the Constitution of the United States of America. It’s a precedent at the Supreme Court to favor free speech over censorship. For example, in Sarah Bradburn et al. v. North Central Regional Library District, the library filtering out pornography was deemed unconstitutional, since the librarians refused to remove the filter for adults (Oliver). If the Supreme Court will uphold an American (over the age of 18) citizens’ rights to access pornography at a public library, then it seems highly unlikely for the Supreme Court would rule in the favor of censoring Glenn Beck’s programing. Glenn Beck is a self-declared constitutionalist. In an odd way, by testing the limits of free speech, he is progressing the way Americans interpret our rights.

In my view, a democracy and republic—a government where the majority of citizens influence policy and a society where everyone is equally bound to a system of laws—requires open discourse to function. The political process is a dynamic. Conversations between commentators, voters, senators, judges, etc. all inform the laws that are applied to all of us. The inception of this nation began with a bill of rights, one of the laws contained within being the freedom of speech. This is to ensure what I shall analogize as stereo. The liberals see an issue from a standpoint opposed to the conservatives. In this way, ideas merge together or cancel each other, much like the sound waves from two audio speakers of a stereo system. The left and right ear combines the noise together to provide depth. If Glenn Beck’s ideas are so wrong, then why isn’t somebody out there to counter his ideas? If it’s his rhetoric that convinces people, then why can’t Beck’s opponents use better rhetoric? Keep in mind that not all rhetoric uses fallacy of argumentation such as slippery slope, false dichotomy, and guilt by association. Rhetoric, in the pure sense of the word, is effective delivery of information through an aesthetically pleasing style. What I suspect is truly missing is a worthy liberal counterpart to Glenn Beck. The most successful critics to Glenn Beck have been Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central. It seems as though CNN and MSNBC neglect to balance out Beck’s irresponsible ranting, either afraid they will subsume to the same faults or that they’d be granting credibility to the man for taking him seriously.

What is society to do then? “The only way to really kill a book is not to censor but rather to ignore it, to let it go quietly into the night” (Kidd 18). This bit of advice applies to any medium. A television show isn’t so different than a serialized book that is read to you with a complementary visual presentation. Could people just ignore Glenn Beck? As cliché as it is to say, I think consumers have far more power than they imagine. It’s easy to think of yourself as this autonomous individual with little power. In reality, all tax-paying Americans belong to a larger identity. It’s possible to pool ourselves together (pardon the pun) to make change happen. That’s what the constitution meant by freedom of assembly and petition: there is power in numbers. Boycotts work by starving a good or service of its customers. In a sense, it’s like a sanction on the company—but instead of by a government, done by the people of the nation. If nobody bought into Glenn Beck’s “fusion of entertainment and enlightenment,” then the advertisers financing the show would pull out of the deal (something that has actually happened already). We don’t need the United States government to protect us from Glenn Beck’s ideas. The role of our government ought to be in ensuring a healthy public education system to inform citizens early on the dirty tricks of some rhetoricians.

The answer to Glenn Beck is to treat him as a presenter of a valid viewpoint, as a spokesperson for a certain slice of America. Other commentators ought to challenge his ideas more often, methodically, rigorously, explaining why Beck is incorrect. They should analyze the points in which Beck may be exaggerating or misinterpreting the truth. If other commentators do their job, then the American public will gradually lose interest in Beck’s conspiracy theories. If the American public loses interest, then the advertisers will instead pay for their commercials to air between the content of a more relevant show. If the Glenn Beck show loses its advertising money, then it will be cancelled by the corporate media conglomerate owning it. That’s how censorship must work in a technologically advanced democracy such as ours. Censorship by the state is ineffective and ultimately rouses interest in whatever it attempted to get rid of. The best way to mitigate the risks of Glenn Beck’s rhetoric is to challenge it until most people understand they don’t like what he’s been feeding them.

Work Cited

Andelman, David A. “Censorship: Might vs. Right.” World Policy Journal (MIT Press) 27.3 (2010): 113-120. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Apr. 2011. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=9&sid=2dcc7bdb-5c9f-4872-adb2-871d5b1d1f7d%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3 QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=54018930>.

Beck, Glenn. “Glenn's Pledge of Nonviolence.” Glenn Beck. Mercury Radio Arts, n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2011. <http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/01/10/glenns-letter-to-the-american-people-politicians-and-media/>.

Bauder, David. "Glenn Beck's Fox Show Ending." KOLD NEWS 13. Raycom Media Station, n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2011. <http://www.kold.com/story/14395429/glenn-beck-leaving-his-fox-news-channel-show>.

Kidd, Kenneth. “Not Censorship but Selection: Censorship and/as Prizing.” Children's Literature in Education 40.3: 197-216. Children's Literature in Education. Web. 13 Apr. 2011. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=176c7c5b-eba8-4217-8cda-5ea49e3330ef%40sessionmgr114&vid=3&hid=127&bdata=JnNpd GU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=aph&AN=43350703>.

Oliver, Kent, June Pinnell-Stephens, and Barbara Jones. “All or Nothing: Hardly the Facts.” Library Journal 136.1 (2011): 42-43. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Apr. 2011. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=9&sid= 2dcc7bdb-5c9f-4872-adb2-871d5b1d1f7d%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9Z Whvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=57251306>.

Piven, Frances Fox. “Crazy Talk and American Politics: or, My Glenn Beck Story.” Chronicle of Higher Education 57.25 (25): b4-b5. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Apr. 2011. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=9&sid= 2dcc7bdb-5c9f-4872-adb2-871d5b1d1f7d%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU 9ZWhvc3QtbGl2Z Q%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=59181447>.

The New York Times Company. “Craziest Glenn Beck Quotes of All Time.” About.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2011. <http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-glenn-beck-quotes.htm?PS=920%3A7>.

“New Political Science Condemns Glenn Beck and Urges Collective Action.” New Political Science 33.1 (2011): 5-6. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Apr. 2011. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=10&hid=9&sid=2dcc7bdb-5c9f-4872-adb2-871d5b1d1f7d%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2      ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=59214610>.

“The Freedom to Conduct Research, Write, and Share Ideas without Fear of Violence is Fundamental to American Democracy.” American Sociological Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2011. <http://www.asanet.org/press/Freedom_to_Conduct_ Research_Without_Fear_of_Violence.cfm>.