‘The Ed Show’ gets it wrong on Glenn Beck
If you’re reading this blog, you have probably long since come to the same conclusion about Glenn Beck that I have: Fox News’ newest star is an unfunny, obnoxious blowhard at his best, a fear- and hate-monger at his worst. Whether he’s screaming at callers, hosting hysteria-driven tea parties, calling anti-war activist, Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in action in Iraq, a “tragedy pimp,” wondering aloud whether FEMA weren’t setting up concentration camps, or trash-taking 9/11 families, it seems there’s little he won’t say or do in attempts to divide and conquer according to Americans’ basest sentiments.
Little surprise, then, that the news cycle Wednesday was dominated by news of his calling President Obama a racist on the Fox News morning show, Fox and Friends. Here’s the whole thing:
Says Beck: “This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.” When reminded that most of his cabinet, and most of his staff are white — to say nothing of his white mother, and the white grandparents who raised him he dodges the facts: “I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people, I’m saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist.”
Of course, he doesn’t really say why, except by referring to Van Jones, the country’s new “Green Jobs Czar,” as a “black nationalist” and “avowed communist.” Other than that, Obama’s premature public statement about Gatesgate is apparently evidence enough for Beck and his audience of Obama’s racism and “deep-seated hatred for white people,” and, as such, requires no further elucidation.
Ed Schultz, on the other hand, is someone I generally like — admittedly because I agree with his politics more often than not. So I was bothered when the veteran, award-winning broadcaster framed the issue the way that he did on Wednesday night’s “The Ed Show” :
Granted, I don’t disagree with Schultz’s assessment of Beck. He rightly accuses Beck of of being the type of guy who “hides behind his plastic Jesus” and of being a “flag-wrapper” — “one of these guys that are out there that wrap themselves in the flag and pretend that they’re so much more patriotic and love the country so much more than you do.” He’s also right when he says that, “the fact is, this man has decided to sell hate on the man you elected to be President of the United States.”
But when he goes on to state that the Beck flap “is not a freedom of speech issue,” I have to object. It’s not the only issue at play, but, make no mistake, our ideas about free speech definitely play a role here.
He puts the question to his viewers thusly: “Do you think the right wing’s verbal attacks on President Obama are:
A. Free Speech?
B. Hate Speech?”
Viewers are invited to text their response to the Ed Show for a text survey.
Unfortunately, as much as we may revile what Beck has to say, this isn’t Europe. We don’t have anti-hate speech laws, and, in the end, that’s a good thing because it ensures that you and I and Schultz and, yes, Glenn Beck, have the freedom to verbalize our discontent whenever and however we want. To pose this question as an either/or proposition is the wrong way to go, when the answer is “both.”
Yes, it is hate speech. But, equally yes, it is free speech. And when we start trying to decide who has the right to speak and who doesn’t, we stumble into dangerous territory — ironically, the same territory occupied by Dick Cheney, secret extraditions, Guantanamo Bay, phone-tapping and the would-be book-burning fans of Beck himself.
There’s been some discussion as to whether or not Beck should apologize to Obama for his comments (go here for a discussion of that nature betwenn Chris Matthews and Congressman Kweisi Mfune). Decency says yes. But the correct answer to whether he “should” or “shouldn’t” do anything, I’m afraid, is no. In a perfect world, Beck would apologize every day for the rest of his life just for being who he is. Why should he apologize for saying one offensive, idiotic thing over another? It’s what Fox pays him to do each day.
We live in a democracy. Unfortunately, sometimes each citizen’s inalienable right to be an idiot is just something we have to accept.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Austin I agree that hate speech is protected speech but I think the real problem here is what is going on at Fox. Certainly Beck is the worst offender but the entire network has really gone overboard since the election.
Brian, I agree about Fox. It’s scary what’s going on over there. I always try to do the good journalist thing and devote a little time to watching what they have to say each day, but, alas, it always scares the hell out of me really quickly.
It just worries me when my “good guys” start talking about who should be allowed to say what. I’m always reminding myself that one of the worst and most effective proponents of censorship in my lifetime was Tipper Gore, who was as bad as anyone on the far right.
The punditry has been bringing up the Kanye West incident in reference to the Beck flap, when he said George Bush hated black people after Katrina. It gets framed like an apples to apples comparison, assuming it’s just accepted wisdom these days that Kanye should have apologized.
It’s not. But for the record, I never thought he should have had to apologize either. The Bush Admin’s handling of Katrina was a fucking disaster, and Kanye, right or wrong, inferred what he wanted and said what he thought.
With decent precedent, it’s exactly the sort of thing the right wing could argue is hate speech in the future. That would be a sad day, indeed, regardless of how one might feel about what was said, whether Bush was, in fact, a racist, etc.
In response to another comment. See in context »Austin, your analysis on the distinction between free speech and “hate speech” is perspicacious and spot on. Schultz and his ideological followers seem to be arguing that Beck should be punished for engaging in what he (Schultz) finds offensive or construes as “hate speech” a rather nebulous concept to begin with and inimical to our right to say anything — however intemperate or shocking — without fear of retribution.
While everyone should have the right to say what they please, without the prior restraint of the fear of running afoul of “hate speech” codes, this fundamental right does not shield (nor should it) from the adverse consequences such speech may bring.
Excellent piece. I am always saddened when people on the left start talking about limiting speech. It is a completely alien idea to me and is one of very few issues on which we stand apart.
I’d ask Mr. Shultz one question: Given the fact that hateful people exist, would you rather let them identify themselves by speaking out, or would you rather they be driven underground where their hatred stays hidden and festering? I choose the former. Let anyone say anything – I want to know who my enemies are!
I think you all need to go back and view the video again. No place does Ed or his guest call for censorship. All that being done here is calling the peddlers of hate out on it. You’re all making quite a leap here that frankly I don’t think exists.
Brian, I’ve watched the video numerous times. And you’re right: never once does Schultz call for censorship. But I never said he did.
The problem is his framing of the issue: you simply cannot frame the “hate speech” vs. “free speech” debate as an either/or proposition. To say that a given statement, however loathsome, could be one or the other — or to suggest it in other ways, as Schultz did with his text survey — is the first step toward censorship.
Everything anyone ever says in this country — even the most hateful shit on earth — is still free speech. To imply otherwise is to imply that some forms of speech are acceptable and some are not. And although I think Glenn Beck is the scum of the earth, I will still defend his right to say whatever he wants, without having to apologize. It’s the only way to guarantee that I can say whatever the hell I want.
“What about shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater?” I hear someone ask. Shit, you got me there. “Couldn’t incendiary statements like Beck’s be classified as even more dangerous, if less overtly?” Hell, I don’t know. Probably.
In response to another comment. See in context »“The problem is his framing of the issue: you simply cannot frame the “hate speech” vs. “free speech” debate as an either/or proposition.”
Ok, I can see your point there.
In response to another comment. See in context »