Sep
21
Scattered thoughts on Beck
September 21, 2009 | 4 Comments
Since I stayed home with Bernadette a couple of days last week, it afforded me an opportunity to catch a couple of Glenn Beck shows on Fox News. It’s the first time I’ve really been able to see more than a few minutes of the program since he started, and I was a bit curious. He’s no longer on the radio here in DC, so it’s really the first time I’ve seen or heard Beck at any great length in some time. A few thoughts.
- For the first time in my life I thought to myself, “Gee, I could really go for a commercial break right about now.” I believe the first segment on each show ran for almost 20 minutes uninterrupted. I often complain that most talks shows – both political and sports – run far too many commercials, but that was just too much unfiltered Beck to take in one sitting. Maybe MTV, even though I haven’t watched it in about 12 years, has spoiled the way I look at television. Whatever it is, there needs to be more breaks in the action just to slow down the pace of the show. I realize that part of the problem is the idiotic bycott aginst Beck, but man, just throw it back to the studio or something if you can’t find advertisers.
- Beck’s at an 11. He needs to be at a 7. I appreciate the emotion, and it makes for an entertaining program. But the constant drumbeat of “OH MY GOD WE NEED TO GET THESE RASCALS OUT NOW GRRRRRRR!!!!” combined with the hammy over-performance and the “I’m on the verge of tears and/or a nervous breakdown” is again too much to take.
- That said, I do not think he is a threat to the republic. Yeah, he is a bit of a ham who tends to over-dramatize things, but I’ve seen far worse. We’ve got bigger issues than whether or not Beck is an over-the-top performer.
But he does make me appreciate the truly good talkers like Rush, Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin all the more. I have mixed emotions about Beck, quite frankly. I appreciate his fortrightness and his true passion for trying to restore some of our Founding ideals. But in a lot of ways he reminds me of Hannity – though, to be sure, he’s much better than Hannity. Neither really offers up any unique insight. It’s sort of the same old stuff packaged in a different way. Rush, Laura, and Mark – say what you will about them – have unique takes on any given topic and offer fresh perspectives. They go a little deeper and really make interesting connections. Beck is more about throwing out the red meat. There’s a place for that, but in the end it’s actually just a bit boring.
No TagComments
4 Comments so far
I tend to agree with you about Beck. I can only take so much. I guess he deserves a place at the table of talk show hosts, but he is not in a class with Limbaugh, Ingraham and Levin. That said, I don’t think Ingraham and Levin are in the same class as Rush, not by a long shot.
I really like the idea of Laura Ingraham; she’s super smart, Catholic, younger, attractive and female, but I find that too often she’s just repeating the same Hannity/O’Reilly talking points. Maybe I feel that way because of the way she subs for O’Reilly on the Factor: yakking, talking over people, cutting people off.
Levin was an acquired taste for me. Obviously the voice takes some getting used to, and the way he treats callers and starts name-calling (“there, I said it!”) initially gave me the illusion that there was not much substance to him. I’ve gotten into his schtick, and I bought his book, but as a broadcaster he’s got nothing on Rush. Also, he’s started to become very repetitive since he published that book. I haven’t gotten very far in it but I think I could recite it by heart.
My #2 conservative talk show host is probably Michael Medved. I used to listen to him all the time when I lived in Philly. If Mark Steyn ever get his own show, I would be all about that. And, I have to admit, my guilty pleasure is Michael Savage. Yes, I know the guy is CRAZY, but he’s actually really kinda funny, and he’s second to only Limbaugh in long radio monologues (granted, they usually wind from dogs to Pelosi to pasta sauce to boats to Marxism to shoe salesmen in 1950s Brooklyn)
That’s a bit scary because I think you just about expressed exactly how I feel about the rest, though I think Laura is a definite step above Hannity/O’Reilly. But Rush is still the king. I like Medved, though he’s not on here in DC. I can catch him over the internet and I have listened to him a bit over the past month. Savage used to be my guilty pleasure but I really can’t take him anymore. And Steyn is the only gust-host for Rush that I ever listen to.
One thing that I think puts Laura (and Levine, and Rush, and Beck, and -God bless him- Savage) above O’Reilly and Hannity is perhaps they actually have convictions. Ingraham’s conversion to Catholicism kinda proves to me that big things matter to her.
Levin’s books also prove that there is substance there. He is grounded in a philosophy. Rush’s outlook is so coherent, even though he likes to joke and tease and use hyperbole, that I do not doubt he is grounded in his beliefs. I think Beck and Savage are genuine in their own ways as well.
I’m not really sure what drives Hannity or O’Reilly. I think they are both very driven and ambitious. They had to be to get where they are. And they must appeal to someone, somewhere, to get the ratings they do. That said, O’Reilly’s interview of Obama during the campaign was a disaster. I knew it would be going in. If Obama ever dares to go up against Rush, however, it’s game over.
[...] Setting aside my own hopelessly naive notions of civility, fair play, and the importance of honest public discourse, is there even any political benefit to defending this type of lunacy? And, even if there are political benefits, shouldn’t we see more Catholics denouncing people like Beck, rather than offering tepid defenses? [...]