Did Glenn Beck’s On-air Rhetoric Fuel Cop Killer’s Rampage?

Conservative T.V. talking head Glenn Beck has entertained the notion that video game violence leads to the real thing, but in the aftermath of Sunday’s triple cop slaying in Pittsburgh, some critics are drawing a connection between Beck’s on-air political rants and accused killer Richard Poplawski’s horrific rampage.

The Daily Beast reports that the 22-year old Poplawski is a white supremacist and conspiracy theorist who harbored fears that President Obama will seek to establish some type of "new world order" and remove guns from private citizens.

Poplawski is also a Beck fan:

The alleged killer posted a YouTube clip to [white supremacist site] Stormfront of top-rated Fox News host Glenn Beck contemplating the existence of FEMA-managed concentration camps… Three weeks later, Poplawski posted another Youtube clip to Stormfront, this time of a video blogger advocating “Tea Parties,” or grassroots conservative protests organized by Beck and Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich against President Barack Obama’s bailout plan…

David Neiwert, a veteran reporter on right-wing militia movements… explained that by co-opting conspiratorial rhetoric from the farthest shores of the right, mainstream conservative talkers can inflame the passions of paranoiacs like Poplawski to a dangerous degree…

 

"What it does is unhinge fringe players from reality and dislodges them even further. When someone like Poplawski hears Glenn Beck touting One World Government and they’re gonna take your gun theories, they believe then that it must be true. And that’s when they really become crazy.”

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

139 comments

  1. T5 says:


    This is funny as I was just thinking that there was nothing left to say that would make you acknowledge or understand the reality of the situation.  It is increasingly clear that we cannot convince each other and with that I’ll offer a few thoughts on your last comment here and offer you the last word with my thanks for a worthwhile and fun debate.  

    He was disturbed enough to be driven to violence in the face of cops at a his door, after listening to Beck day in and day out.  I think he would have been less disturbed without Beck’s influence.

    You think, but again you fail to make the leap here, the tie from Beck to the act of shooting.  It is not enough to hate Beck in this argument.  The cops showed up to the man’s house to remove him (a fight with his mother caused this) and the shootings occurred then.  It was not a preplanned assault and one could make a better case that the man was afraid of losing his residency.  The man had issues that in no way could be attributed to Beck, as we both agreed before, he was disturbed and not rational.

    So the question is, how far did Beck’s influence push this man towards (and over) that threshold?  How far can a video game push someone toward it?

    The answer here is obvious in that both are immaterial in regards to the actions that are ultimately taken by gamers or talk show listeners.  That is of course the answer for those who believe in self-responsibility, as we know people like Beck and JT would take issue. 

    How the message is interpreted is hugely affected by the listener’s belief as to the truthfulness of the message.

    A belief in a message is no justification for perverting it or misunderstanding it.  As said before Beck was not calling for armed resistance, DOOM is not a murder simulator.  When looking at the intent of either games or Beck it is inarguable benign and nowhere near rational justification for the actions taken.

    And yes I am caught up in the message thing because it is the keystone of not this one debate but debating games as a whole.  I have provided examples earlier of how other mediums deliver messages but ultimately it is agreed upon that the end individual was responsible (the Stephen King incident for one) and this is no different.  Simply hating Beck is not enough to tie him to this shooting, and yes it truly does do a disservice to the gamers’ own message and defense of self-responsibility and determination.     

  2. lumi says:

    "Can he now?  But I thought: “This guy [the shooter] was disturbed”"

    You’re acting as if it’s a binary setting.  It’s a whole psychological spectrum.  He was disturbed enough to be driven to violence in the face of cops at a his door, after listening to Beck day in and day out.  I think he would have been less disturbed without Beck’s influence.

    How psychologically stable someone is, is a matter of degree.  And yes, there is a critical threshold beyond which someone can act out in a violent manner they wouldn’t normally be capable of.  The closer someone naturally is to that threshold, the less outside stimulation it takes to cross it.  So the question is, how far did Beck’s influence push this man towards (and over) that threshold?  How far can a video game push someone toward it?

    "The issue is not about fake vs. real it is about message and how it is interpreted"

    How the message is interpreted is hugely affected by the listener’s belief as to the truthfulness of the message.

    "there have been plenty of fictional people with messages stronger and more enduring then Beck’s"

    You’re so caught up on this "message" thing.  No fictional character has ever said "the Obama government is going to do XYZ".  Fictional characters can carry real messages through allegories.  They’re not literally describing what government X is going to do to real citizens.  They’re cautionary tales, they’re not purporting to predict the future (which Beck and the like do claim).

    "Beck is not poison"

    Beck is the worst kind of poison, and denying that is only helping his cause.  He LIES.  He’s a political opportunist who will say anything for ratings and to undermine the political party he opposes.  He doesn’t care about the good of the country, he cares about the good of Glen Beck.

    But hey, he’s a pundit!  That means he’s a well-informed expert, so what he says must be accurate!

    "Xbox games are not either and those who claim otherwise are perverting the message of both. We need to be consistent in this approach"

    You still don’t get it, and I just don’t think there’s anything left to say that will make you acknowledge or understand the reality of this situation.  It is NOT perverting either message to recognize the truth.  There is a difference between Beck and games, and until you come to realize and/or accept that, you’re never going to understand that the only way to do anyone a disservice here is to equate them, and allow them to suffer the same judgment (guilty OR not guilty).

  3. T5 says:


    Please to not confuse my wanting of you to clarify your position by defining your terms as doubt in my own position.  On the contrary it is to help the exchange which has been a healthy and civil one, though taught with disagreements. 

     

    HE CAN CAUSE RATIONAL PEOPLE TO ACT VIOLENTLY!

     

    Can he now?  But I thought: “This guy [the shooter] was disturbed  Where are the rational people who are acting violently then, unless it is your position that the shooter was indeed rational, which as the news shows he was not.  The issue is not about fake vs. real it is about message and how it is interpreted, there have been plenty of fictional people with messages stronger and more enduring then Beck’s.  Individuals are presented with messages form many sources constantly be it videogame or talk show but at the end of the day it is all on the individual to be responsible for their actions, Beck, GTA or what have you did not pull the trigger. If Gamers do believe in self-responsibility and determination then here is the time.  Not the time to see a political rival or disagreeable be maligned and smeared. Beck is not poison, Xbox games are not either and those who claim otherwise are perverting the message of both. We need to be consistent in this approach less we become Thompsonites all.  Divorce yourself of your hatred from Beck and be…rational. 

  4. lumi says:

    "After all this kind of rhetoric of blaming one for another’s actions serves to do nothing but hurt the cause of gaming acceptance."

    Answering this one separately.  I take huge acceptance to this statement, and here’s why.  This is not a compromise.  This is not "well, we’re at an impasse, and the mature thing is to meet half way."

    Not only is Beck wrong when he blames video games, but there are fundamental reasons why he shouldn’t even be able to make the comparison!  I will be DAMNED if I’m going to fight tooth and nail to help make the world understand that games do not cause RATIONAL PEOPLE to act violently, and then have some asshat like Beck USE that accomplishment to get himself off the hook when HE CAN CAUSE RATIONAL PEOPLE TO ACT VIOLENTLY!

    This whole issue is not a double standard, it’s a double whammy.  Games are fake; he is real.  He CAN influence rational people; games cannot. For him to be able to take games down with him, or cling to them as a life raft…both situations are WRONG.  I personally won’t stand for either.  Reversing the argument isn’t being hypocritical, it’s pointing out 1) the inaccuracy of the comparison between Beck and games, and 2) that he’s full of shit and ought to take responsibility for his words, and the impact they can have on the public.

  5. lumi says:

    " You are forgetting the context in which this story was posted on this website to begin with and that is: is it fair to level the same charges made against videogames against Beck?"

    I’m not forgetting that at all.  I’m answering "Yes, it is, and here is why…"

    "Beck’s message has nothing to do with shooting cops, just like GTA’s message (at least San Andreas) was a social commentary to some extent, not a do it yourself cop killing simulator."

    You are correct, he did not explicitly call for the murder of police officers.  What he did explicitly do is lie, and he did so in what he knew to be a highly incendiary manner (read: choosing his words, tone, phrasing, etc. in a manner that would rouse, anger, infuriate, or even enrage the sensibilities of the kind of person he knows to be his core audience, i.e. hardcore right-wingers).

    "You know, Obama the Muslim is ruining this country.  He’s banning assault weapons, infringing upon our constitutional rights!  You know what’s going to happen, don’t you?  They’re going to come into your home and take your guns!  Just gonna TAKE them!  Who the hell do they think they are?!  We need to save our country…I love this country, and I fear for it.  Don’t you?"

    If I were to say this to someone who was already leaning hard to the right, you don’t think that would have some influence on his reaction when suddenly, cops do show up at his door?  You don’t think that wouldn’t affect the conclusions he’d jump to before learning why they’re actually there?

    And if I were a television personality, forget it.  That’s validation.  Someone on the news show said this, it must be true!  I need to do something about it, damnit!

    "For someone to believe Beck to the letter does not have enough weight to justify a shooting, there is a disconnect here that you or anyone else arguing against Mr. Beck has yet to bridge."

    I have bridged it.  It’s the fact that he’s a television personality, and a so-called political expert, to boot.  There is a reasonable expectation for rational (if not very bright) conservative Americans to take his word as gospel.

    "It is so simple, for all this talk of rationality do not rational people have a right to expect that others will prefer order to chaos?"

    And for the shooter in this story, opening fire on those cops who were clearly there to take his guns, infringe upon his freedoms, disrupt his way of life…that was his attempt to maintain order over chaos.  I think "order vs. chaos" is the wrong way to look at this.  The real question is, "will the rational human being put serious effort into maintaining the status quo, if he is satisfied with his current state?"  To which the answer is almost universally "yes". 

    Beck & co. aren’t saying "all this great stuff was going to come, but Obama’s stopping it!"; he’s saying "Obama is about to take away all this great stuff you already have (and are entitled to)!"  It makes a difference, when it comes to how extreme a reaction can be elicited from the average human being in response.

    "which is to say value societal norms."

    Again, this guy was being told that Obama was turning all the "societal norms" on their head.  Acting out against Obama’s "agents" (the cops coming for his guns, etc.) was an attempt to maintain societal norms (or if you prefer, the "order" he knew).

    "It will always be interesting to study why people like this shooter make these decisions, but in the end they are wholly their own,"

    The decision is ultimately their own, yes.  BUT…you mention yourself the study of "why".  You cannot deny that Beck’s rhetoric isn’t some kind of factor; he planted and nurtured seeds of bias against Obama in the ears and minds of his audience, and he’s not the only one.  The conservative media machine has been in overdrive from the moment Obama was elected.  The question is, how much influence did that have over this man’s decision-making process.  And I am positing that it was a non-trivial level of influence (if you’re asking why I make that supposition, it’s based on knowledge of relevant history and a psychology degree).

    "When you concede but a sentence later the man’s capability to snap."

    ANYONE can snap, under the right conditions.  There’s no such thing as the completely stable human being.  Some people merely take more pressure (and/or different kinds of pressure), to reach their breaking point.  Also, there are as many chaotic reactions to a psychological break as there are people.

    "Also you speak of a predisposition to accept messages and a cumulative effect (defined as what, the shooting?)"

    "Predisposition to accept messages" means that, as an already conservative individual, he’s more likely to accept what Beck tells him on face value because it confirms notions and ideas that he already believes, or more importantly wants to believe.  Beck is giving form and rationalization to anti-Obama sentiments that this guy is just looking for a reason to have.  The cumulative effect I referred to is in reference to Beck being on the air, every day, constantly repeating his over-the-top conservative messages.  A person hears something repeated often enough, no matter how outrageous it is, it becomes believable.

    The first time someone tells you the government has formed an elite black ops unit that’s going door-to-door stealing guns from American citizens, even a conservative might say "bullshit, they can’t do that…it’ll never happen".  The hundredth time you hear it in as many days, from a "political expert" on television, that same conservative is probably saying to himself "fuck…I need to figure out how to hide my guns, they’re probably almost here!"

    I am at least as comfortable with my position in this debate as I was when it started =P

    TL;DR version: This guy was disturbed, but if he hadn’t been getting the poison in his ear from Beck all this time, the likelihood of this shooting happening, or being as bad as it was, would have been non-trivial reduced, because he believed what Beck was saying (as many conservatives do).

  6. T5 says:


    To begin, I am not 100% wrong, far from it, maybe 15% but I digress.  You are forgetting the context in which this story was posted on this website to begin with and that is: is it fair to level the same charges made against videogames against Beck?  The story is to enforce the absurdity of Beck’s earlier claims by putting the shoe on the other foot.  The heart of the matter is message delivery.  Beck’s message has nothing to do with shooting cops, just like GTA’s message (at least San Andreas) was a social commentary to some extent, not a do it yourself cop killing simulator.  For someone to believe Beck to the letter does not have enough weight to justify a shooting, there is a disconnect here that you or anyone else arguing against Mr. Beck has yet to bridge.  It is not enough to throw around words and italicize them.  When it gets down to the brass tacks of it Mr. Beck did not call for shootings.  It is so simple, for all this talk of rationality do not rational people have a right to expect that others will prefer order to chaos? 

     

    Mr. Beck cannot be condemned for these individual actions anymore than a videogame, because rational people should be expected to prefer order to chaos, which is to say value societal norms.  This shooter perverted messages he received to an agenda he already had, not one Beck gave him. It will always be interesting to study why people like this shooter make these decisions, but in the end they are wholly their own, not a videogame, and not Beck’s.      

     

    What I am saying is that I absolutely do believe that events would not have transpired as they did if not for his incendiary rhetoric.  Might this man have snapped at some later date, under different circumstances?  Possibly.  Possibly not.  But the crap that Beck spews, over time, absolutely has a cumulative effect on those who listen and are predisposed to accept it, if it is offered (and I am NOT saying that the only ones affected are inherently irrational; just predisposed to accept incendiary right-wing rhetoric).

     

    I take pause at the bolded statement and inquire: What is this based off of, faith?  When you concede but a sentence later the man’s capability to snap.  Also you speak of a predisposition to accept messages and a cumulative effect (defined as what, the shooting?)  This passage here leads me to believe that you may not be as comfortable with your position as other posts lead me to believe.  It is fine to hate Beck, conservative, or anyone but not blame them for shootings.  After all this kind of rhetoric of blaming one for another’s actions serves to do nothing but hurt the cause of gaming acceptance.             

     

    NB: awesome debate             

  7. lumi says:

    "Enter now Glenn Beck who is arguing for his point of view (this idea that presenting it as fact is wholly significant is a red herring in this case as all debaters and punditry presents their ideas as facts or at least the superior understanding of available facts)"

    I simply can’t think of any way to say this less bluntly than "You are completely, 100% wrong".  The statement I quoted above is categorically false; the fact that he (or ANY!) pundit presents their ideas as facts is not only not a red herring, it’s the very heart of the matter!  It is because they present their opinions as facts, coupled with their status as media icons, that they are taken at their word, and can reasonably expect to be taken at their word.  And it is because of that fact that they should be held responsible, to some degree, for the actions they incite (and I use that word very deliberately).

    I am not saying that the shooter was a perfectly normal, well-adjusted person.  What I am saying is that I absolutely do believe that events would not have transpired as they did if not for his incendiary rhetoric.  Might this man have snapped at some later date, under different circumstances?  Possibly.  Possibly not.  But the crap that Beck spews, over time, absolutely has a cumulative effect on those who listen and are predisposed to accept it, if it is offered (and I am NOT saying that the only ones affected are inherently irrational; just predisposed to accept incendiary right-wing rhetoric).

    Again, I am not saying that the bulk of the responsibility doesn’t belong with the shooter.  But to ignore the outside forces that contribute to these tragedies does a disservice to all those involved, and does nothing to protect anyone from future such occurrences.  Whose fault was Columbine?  Ultimately, the shooters, absolutely.  But did the numerous kids who picked on them over a span of years contribute to what happened?  Abso-friggin-lutely, and to pretend that the long and short of it was "they were fucked up in the head, nothing we could have done about it, no attention should be paid to bullying in our schools" is shameful.  Similarly, to suggest that the rhetoric of any extremist pundit doesn’t contribute to the people who do snap, is disingenuous, and does a disservice to everyone involved.

  8. Pixelantes Anonymous says:

    No. Free Speech has nothing to do with what I was saying.

    Beck is a hate mongerer, constitutionally protected unless he actually says "go kill Obama".

    Video games are not hate mongerers.

    Hate mongering: bad

    Video games: not bad

    Hate mongering: free speech

    Video games: free speech

    http://pixelantes.blogspot.com/

  9. T5 says:


    My friend this is not a straw man argument that I am making.  Remember the whole context of this conversation is: Is it fair to blame this shooting on Beck much in the same way videogames are blamed for shootings?  With that established we have to look at the message that is being sent through any medium that could potentially fall under this umbrella.  That would include TV, Books, Videogames, Talk show hosts or any other message sender.  The works I cited earlier are all appeals to some kind of political or social situation, The Jungle for instance moved people to reconsider health standards and maybe Army of 2 did raise questions about the likes of Black Water. 

     

    Enter now Glenn Beck who is arguing for his point of view (this idea that presenting it as fact is wholly significant is a red herring in this case as all debaters and punditry presents their ideas as facts or at least the superior understanding of available facts) and does so well within the boundaries of his first amendment right.  For the facts available now it did not seem that the shooter was rational pre-Beck (please clarify your point of view on this) and therefore there should be no expectation of rationality form the man regardless of what he deiced to watch or listen too.  Beck was not issuing orders for people to start shooting cops, that is all on the shooter.  This is very similar to the shootings surrounding “The Catcher in the Rye” and no rational person is calling for J.D. Salinger to take responsibility, nor was Stephen King held responsible for the subsequent school shooting after “Rage” was published. 

     

    “No game is ever going to move a rational person to irrational action.”       

     

    We can only hope that this stays the case.  JT would take issue here and we would laugh him out of the room.  Again please clarify your position on the shooter’s rationality, as it seems to be your biggest appeal. 

     

    And I will leave you with this.  The entire community looks towards self-responsibility and determination.  We like to hold parents responsible and we like for people to own up to their individual actions.  We are not interested in excuses.  People have free will, it is on them to use it responsibly and no one else.  To blame Beck for this shooting just to score some cheap shots is no different than any attack videogames receive.      

  10. lumi says:

    "People here are acting like Glenn Beck has some sort of magical charisma about him."

    What world are you living in?  Yes, celebrities and television personalities are significantly capable of moving people to action in ways that "normal" people can’t inspire.

  11. lumi says:

    "On this we do not see eye to eye, one hundred years from now people will still be reading the likes of 1984 and Uncle Tom’s Cabin or even The Jungle.  Do not be so arrogant as to assume that venues of message communication are irrelevant to this conversation as any one of those authors would tell you they damn well had a point to their respective works."

    Again, this is a straw man argument.  I am not being arrogant, nor am I assuming that those authors had no point to their respective works.  This is a straw man at its finest.

    "There is no implication that a follower of Beck is predestined to be a shooter (re: Not all Gamers become sociopaths or what have you) and until you can make this link it is a losing argument."

    "Predestined" to be a shooter?  No.  But that’s not the argument.  The question is, of the stimuli, internal and external, that led this man to become a shooter, how significant was Beck?  Further, should he have been able to foresee that he would, or even could, have such a significant effect?

    As an individual claiming to be relating facts, and choosing to do so in such an incendiary manner, the answers are "non-trivially significant" and "yes, he should".  The words of a television personality in a(n allegedly) non-fiction medium carry a weight of truth and appeal that can move a rational person to action, sometimes detructive and/or illegal action.  There are plenty of examples throughout history, and in many cases, the inciters have been held responsible.

    Video games do not share this distinction.  No game is ever going to move a rational person to irrational action.  Real humans in positions of power are able to do this; the precedent has been there for ages.

  12. Wolvenmoon says:

    URL is a wikipedia link, unfortunately I cannot rename the link for dramatic effect, however, video games are a medium for this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_message

    One type of message (Glenn Beck and other up front talk show hosts) can be actively ignored easily. The other type can be embedded and hard to find.

    Video games are not immune to political messages – as this site often points out – and the messages they carry are often stronger, less obvious, and more intense than ones made by a talk show host.

    Case in point : A long talk show is an hour long. A short video game is ten hours long.

     

    Also, I would like to point out the democrat majority in our congress has extended back into Clinton’s first term. Edit : As I can’t find a timeline that shows both parts, I’ll qualify this with "At least one part of our congress has had a democrat majority…."

    I will not buy securom games. http://www.wolvenmoon.com/sharedfiles/message1.jpg and http://www.wolvenmoon.com/sharedfiles/message2.jpg

  13. Wolvenmoon says:

    If I went on listing ‘liberals’ who advocated violent methods to prove their points, I’d be here all night. If I listed ‘conservatives’ that did the same thing, guess what! Probably the same amount of time here.

    People here are acting like Glenn Beck has some sort of magical charisma about him.

    Ya know what? Why the hell am I even arguing this?

    This guy was a [B]white supremist[/B] (warning bell 1) [B]gun collecting[/B] (bell 2) [B]conspiracy theorist[/B] (ding ding ding).

    Trying to blame Glenn Beck for this is about as smart as trying to blame lucky the leprechaun and the cereal box for arson. ‘The leprachaun told me to burn things.’

     

    I will not buy securom games. http://www.wolvenmoon.com/sharedfiles/message1.jpg and http://www.wolvenmoon.com/sharedfiles/message2.jpg

  14. T5 says:


    "None of which is comparable to a real person making inciteful statements and claiming them to be fact."

    On this we do not see eye to eye, one hundred years from now people will still be reading the likes of 1984 and Uncle Tom’s Cabin or even The Jungle.  Do not be so arrogant as to assume that venues of message communication are irrelevant to this conversation as any one of those authors would tell you they damn well had a point to their respective works.     

    "because drawing such a conclusion from the content of that book is patently ridiculous and irrational beyond societal standards."

    Wait for it…

    "It is not necessarily irrational, beyond societal standards, for someone like the shooter in this story to believe everything he heard from Beck & co"

    Using your own tandem points here you fail to establish how it is rational for the shooter to become a shooter, and of course you do as real rational people know that it is a self-responsibility issue.  There is no implication that a follower of Beck is predestined to be a shooter (re: Not all Gamers become sociopaths or what have you) and until you can make this link it is a losing argument. 

    Videogames do not create killers and neither does Beck, the sooner the community realizes this the better it will be in the future when issues like this undoubtedly raise again.  

  15. lumi says:

    I don’t know how else to say this, as I don’t believe I’m misunderstanding you; I simply disagree.  I don’t see acknowledging games for what they are to be devaluing.  I’m putting them on the same level as movies, books, music, television, and anything form of art.

    None of which is comparable to a real person making inciteful statments and claiming them to be fact.

    Again, Bradbury and Orwell are irrelevant to this comparison.  I don’t dispute that there are messages in their works, but they’re allegories, not literal interpretations.  Animal Farm is not actually a story about animals, and no one would blame the author for a reader going on a crusade to slaughter all pigs to prevent their inevitable overthrow of human society, because drawing such a conclusion from the content of that book is patently ridiculous and irrational beyond societal standards.

    It is not necessarily irrational, beyond societal standards, for someone like the shooter in this story to believe everything he heard from Beck & co.

    What if he hadn’t managed to kill any of the officers?  What if he’d simply injured some, or even missed entirely but opened fire on them?  It changes nothing about the fact that he acted upon the information he received from certain sources, like Beck, because they were presented as facts.

  16. T5 says:

    My Friend you misunderstand me. Of course this is not about games as art; it is about games as speech. It would appear that you are content to devalue a medium as “not real” however a fictional environment and a “real” message are not mutually exclusive, just talk to Ray Bradbury to George Orwell. In the videogame context one could easily make the argument that games like Army of 2 even have a political message.

    While your appeal to rationality is a wise maneuver it comes across as you saying the shooter was rational. Of course our respective arguments are abundantly easier to make when dealing with rational people. Still it can easily be said that someone who would listen to one side and believes all he or she hears as the absolute truth is not rational. Of course “rational” is a very easy word for us to throw around.

  17. HarmlessBunny says:

    Most dominant cultures were viciously cruel and superstitious. I could go on for hours about what has happened in Asia and South America for the past 3000 years….and they weren’t Christian 😀

    I’ll say this: Humans are superstitious and cruel to each other through out the centuries.

  18. lumi says:

    Yes, except anyone trying to compare the two and address them with the same argument ("use our own defense against us") is ignoring the fact that the two are incomparable.

    Rational human beings know that a game is just a game!  However, plenty of rational human beings take the pundits at their word.  You can’t compare the two; the reasons that games are not to blame for violent behavior is not applicable to situations like the one in question with Beck.

    Keep in mind, I’m not saying that what he does is the equivalent of pulling the trigger.  I am saying that his incendiary actions warrant responsibility for the acts he inspires and incites.

  19. lumi says:

    "Does watching an old white guy jabber about how we’re leaning towards a single world government and increased gun control make you want to kill cops?"

    Holy shit, dude.  For a non-trivial number of the people who listen to Glenn Beck…yes, yes it does.

    You cannot compare Beck to video games because rational human beings can tell that a game is a game.  The same cannot be said for the political talking heads: they purport to be purveyors of fact.

    The only "conservative pundit" who has any sort of license to deliver inflammatory, inciteful rhetoric is Stephen Colbert…because everyone knows he’s not serious.  Beck and his ilk have no such excuse; they claim to be real, honest, and fairminded "experts" on the subjects they talk about.

  20. lumi says:

    "The gamer’s defense has not (or at least should not) be about debasing games to the point of some interesting frivolity.  On the contrary, games as a medium and art are becoming serious forms of expression."

    That has exactly -nothing- to do with the topic at hand.  This is not about "games as art"; it’s about the fact that a rational human being understands that, like movies, books, television, etc., games are not real.  A rational human being understands that the rules that govern a game world are not the same as those that govern the real world.

    "Mr. Beck’s role is then immaterial in regards to this shooting in light of this model."

    Complete logical disconnect.  When Beck delivers statements as facts, with the reasonable expectation that a non-trivial portion of his audience will accept them as facts, he has a responsibility above and beyond that of said audience.

    If there were a reasonable expectation that gamers would take the content of the games they play at face value (i.e. "I can shoot someone in the face and they’ll just respawn"), then we would have a responsibility as game developers to monitor the messages we put forth in our games.  But no rational human being thinks that way.  There are plenty of (relatively) rational human beings who do believe everything they’re told by the political talking heads spewing their fire and brimstone proclamations.

  21. Adam says:

    Well although I do think it is cool that Glenn is being blammed for real world violence just like he tries to blame violent video games for real world violence we all have to remember one thing. Glenn was not responsible for the killers actions. If we blame him then we’re just like him. He was no more responsible for the killings then Grand Theft Auto IV or Saint’s Row was. The games didn’t cause the violence and neither did Glenn.

  22. Sukasa says:

    Yeah I know but I was being lazy and didnt feel like listening every group that has pretty much killed someone for something they disagree with(which lets face it, that would pretty much be every religious and non-religious group for the most part..especialy in the past where killing people(and not trying to be killed) tended to be the national past time).

  23. Chaltab says:

    Just the Christians? Because Romans weren’t known for superstition and cruel methods of excecution?

  24. Valdearg says:

    That has got to be the most condemning comment about Conservative Punditry I’ve seen yet. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is too stupid to realize these guys are just spouting thier mouths off. It would scare you. In fact, it is quite possible to scare you so much that you decide to do something about it.

    I remember speaking with a couple conservative friends in school, once, and they made the comment that given how scared and riled these Conservative Leaders are making the common, ignorant American, it wouldn’t be surprising if there were multiple attempts on Obama’s life, even before he was actually elected.

    It’s thinking like this that is going to drive this country to hell. I mean, jesus, I hated Bush with a vengeance, but I would never wish his death, or the death of any other Republican in office. If, rather than trying to incite an armed revolution, these people offered insightful, bi-partisan solutions to the things that they think aren’t being handled the best, I’d imagine things would be quite a bit better.

  25. Sukasa says:

    Whats funny and I haven’t seen it mentioned but back when I was in the army, at some of the forts/camps I was stationed at, we had a SNES and a really small tv hooked up to a M-16 that we would fire at the screen to improve our aim.  Supposly at some of the more bigger forts, they have huge sims to train on, but that little SNES brings back memories lol.  It was kinda like duck hunt from the NES, but you were shooting at stationary targets.  However, I guess JT and them would say that this SNES game was training us to be the next murder snipers.  OWell

  26. Sukasa says:

    What happens when "nutjobs" get into offices of media or government though?  There probably is enough historical evidence that a person can manipulate someone else to violence.  There just ins’t enough evidence yet to show that games cause someone to commit acts of violence.  Maybe one day there will be, but who knows.  I do find it interesting that in most of these lateest strings of gun violence around the country, I don’t think I have seen an article saying "shooter was a gamer of xxxx" yet.

  27. Sukasa says:


    "we have one of the only planets in the galaxy that has any life." should be corrected to "we have one of the only planets in the galaxy of a very large universe, that at our current scientific and technological ability and understanding, we believe we are the only planet to contain said life." 

    After all, the universe is a HUGE place.  2000 or whatever years ago, if I went down the street of Rome and tried to explain to a scholar about dna, how the earth revolves around the sun or some other advance knowledge from our time, I would either be laughed at or more likely (when the Christians were in power) accused of witchcraft and burned at the stake(course..if we were to go back in time 2000 years ago, with our advance knowledge in medicine and technology…we would probably be considered gods/miracle workers).

    We know there are planets revolving around stars not in this solar system.  Maybe in 100, 500, even a 1000 years from now we might have proof/evidence that there is life out there.  Maybe our technology will get to the point where we can leave this solar system and we can explore and find out if we really are alone or just maybe there is other humans or non human sentience out there.  Once upon a time, it was considered impossible to be able to fly, and look at us now, able in airplanes to cross vast distances by flight.

  28. TBoneTony says:

    "People were not able to kill eachother in world war 1???"

    Then why was there so many people killed in world war 1 in the first place?

    That is what I first felt like asking myself, is this guy nuts????

    "It’s not just videogames, it is TV, radio and the entire pop culture…back in the 1950’s, the rate of homoside jumped by 50 percent."

    And he blames TV on all this????

    Strange, because watching him on TV and the bad things on the news each night is enough to make everyone depressed about the world. I guess this is what Right Wing media people try to do, they want to establish an image in people’s minds that the world is currupt. And the Left wing is almost just as bad with political correctness.

     

    Also when he was talking about GTA IV I noticed.

     

    "Neko is a Eastern European thug…"

     

    No Beck, he was a former Russian Police officer…NOT a thug…

    Parents listen up…This guy on TV is trying to brainwash you!!!! Making you hate a M rated videogame making you believe that it is being sold to kids even though it clearly has the M17+ rating on the FRONT COVER!!!!

    Sad thing is, when parents don’t even listen to their kids, this guy is able to take advantage to give parents something to worry about…

     

  29. TBoneTony says:

    I just got the courage to watch his video just now that is shown on this page…

     

    and all I have got to say is…WTF?????

    The Government training their US marines to shoot at paper targets to increase their edge to kill and then they created the "Grandfather" of videogames…

    WHAT!!!!

    Right before PONG????

    Gee, Glenn Beck is just talking out of his ass…where is his information?

     

    Where is his proof???

    Well he is a journalist/reporter on TV and radio so he can make up stuff just to make things newsworthy.

    Oh wait, he is a FoxNews Reporter now, I guess CNN decided to fire him since he hardley ever uses the facts right so Fox got him instead.

     

    Gee…those guys just keep sinking lower and lower with their lies and slander…

     

     

  30. TBoneTony says:

    Cut people in half with a chainsaw????

    In GTA IV????

    Like WTF have those people been playing???

     

    Resident Evil 4 that has the bad guy wanting to chop you in half.

    And in Madworld, well that was a year after GTA IV.

    Sometimes I don’t think this guy could ever be taken seriously anymore as much as he is almost half just about a bad at lying as JT is.

     

    Why do people ever watch his program unless if he is a comedian, I don’t know.

    Perhaps I have never lived in America to realize why people like this guy.

  31. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    Am I the only one who noticed that Billo invoked Godwin’s Law?

    ——————————————————————————

  32. sparkylarone says:

     i know this is kinda off topic but if you watch the video he says you can cut people in half with chainsaws in gta 4. last time i checked you cant. Hes probably never even played the game .

  33. hellfire7885 says:

    Would have been hilarious if his show could no longer air because someone he defined as a loser nerd stopped working for his show.


  34. hellfire7885 says:

    With people likme this in the US, the terrorists may as well have won already, as it’s people like them that make others hate the US.


  35. Wolvenmoon says:

    It’s hilarious people stick Glenn Beck as THE ‘conservative christian talk show host’, when he’s a mormon ( read up on mormonism. )

    For anyone saying that Glenn Beck has *ANY* responsibility in this…

    I won’t dig up the images, but pretend I posted a picture of a GTA hooker kill right *HERE*, and a manhunt 2 kill *HERE*

    Do the above two mental images make you want to kill hookers or execute people? Are you going to do this? Does Bully : Scholarship edition make you give kids swirlies?

    Now put a big ol’ mugshot of Glenn Beck right *HERE*.

    Does watching an old white guy jabber about how we’re leaning towards a single world government and increased gun control make you want to kill cops?

    Now let’s up the ante! The GTA cops just plastered your brains out in GTA IV, ending an 8 hour all day game that you’d not saved in 3 hours. Now do you want to kill cops?

    ———————-

    The point can be one of two things! If you enforce a double standard. It’s Glenn Beck’s fault when some white supremist (which glenn beck is not) kills cops (which glenn beck does not support – he believes in the sanctity of life ) and when a gamer goes on a rampage, it’s not your media’s fault!

    You can be just like Jack Thompson. Your political changes will be as fruitful – causing what you DON’T (or profess to not) want to happen to happen.

    The other point can be that nutjobs will take any damn excuse they can to wreak havoc and death. It’s our job to make sure we don’t blatantly encourage these idiots, but if some media somehow sets off their magical code that turns them into kill mode, it isn’t that media’s fault.

    I’m certain that there’s someone, somewhere, in some part of the world that watched the badger badger badger loop one too many times and bit the head off a live chicken. Perhaps the kitty cat dance caused someone to gouge his eyes out after watching it one too many times. Do badgers incite violence? No. Snakes? No. Mushrooms? Well, it depends on what kind. 

     

    I will not buy securom games. http://www.wolvenmoon.com/sharedfiles/message1.jpg and http://www.wolvenmoon.com/sharedfiles/message2.jpg

  36. TBoneTony says:

    Sad thing is, almost every News Broadcast in the world has almost done the same thing.

    By trusting what is said on the news, people have lead themselves to belive that what is on the news must to a reflection of the world.

    And what they see is a really violent and depressing world.

    I don’t think that the world is bad, because of all that does happen in this world, we have one of the only planets in the galaxy that has any life.

    And I think that makes the Earth Special no matter what happens on the news.

    Besides the news is sometimes one sided, and you have to look at the other side of the world to truly have a greater appreciation of what the Earth is all about.

     

  37. Lou says:

    Man I can’t believe I’m saying this but here it goes.

    I don’t believe the blame should lay squarely on Beck "gags" But he is partialy responsible for it and his hands have some blood on his hands. I believe in freedom of speech as much as the next guy but with that freedom comes a responsibility as well. These people constantly abuse this freedom and these comments of "taking arms" and "revolt against the nation" are purely irresponsible and reprehensible. Granted most of us are smart people and simply laugh at the idiotic rethorics they dare to say but remember that there are some serious whack jobs out there. There are full anti-goverment militias around the nation simply ready to find an excuse to act. And unfortunately entities like the NRA defend these idiots instead of resposible gun owners like myself. Hopefully tgese tragic events should keep them from spewing more garbage. And no nobody here should compare the video game industry with the idiotic programs from Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Beck.

  38. TBoneTony says:

    Wow… and I could say it again wow…

    Seems like Videogames are not the problem at all.

    It is those who try to blame Videogames and other things for society’s ills that are the real problem when some of those people have really strong yet negative opinions about people who don’t really follow their own beliefs.

    We may have all heard about the radical muslims after the events of 9/11. But just listening to some of these people here…like I said again…wow…

     

    Perhaps it is America that needs to solve their own problems instead of forcing other countries to change…

  39. TBoneTony says:

    Well last year when the GTA IV media bash was going on, Glenn Beck was one of the news reporters who laughted and said that "Videogame Bloggers are loosers." and he continued to say those same words on his radio show and said some rather amusing yet insulting things about nerds and geeks…

    So yeah, even though it has nothing to do with Videogames, it is ironic yet also horrible to see that someone has went on a murder and said in a letter that is was because of what Beck said on his TV show.

     

     

  40. Grombar says:

    Politically-motivated murderous rampages since last July:

    Republicans: 2

    Democrats: 0

    Read the last shooter’s manifesto if you really want to see how much paranoia, hatred and fear modern Republican pundits inspire.

    Or, in their own words:

    "I’ll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo — every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress." — Sean Hannity

    "To fight only the al-Qaeda scum is to miss the terrorist network operating within our own borders… Who are these traitors? Every rotten radical left-winger in this country, that’s who." — Michael Savage

    "Liberalism is the greatest threat this country faces." — Rush Limbaugh

    "It is not a stretch to say that MoveOn is the new Klan." — Bill O’Reilly

    "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." — Glenn Beck

    "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too." — Ann Coulter

    "I don’t see any difference between [Arianna] Huffington and the Nazis." — Bill O’Reilly

    "The Islamofascists are actually campaigning for the election of Democrats. Islamofascists from Ahmadinejad to al-Zawahiri, Oba — Osama bin Laden, whoever, are constantly issuing Democrat talking points." — Rush Limbaugh

    The difference between these guys and the shock-jocks in Rwanda who encouraged people to hack their neighbors to death with machetes is just a matter of shrinking degrees.

  41. T5 says:

    Free Speech is what it is my friend.

    While I’m sure there is merit to your hyperbolic quotes and thoughtful characterizations the situation you present has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.  The commonality that is trying to be drawn is that if videogames can cause shootings so can Beck, this leads most people to think neither is the case as human’s have free will and self-responsibility has to be a factor.  Put your hatred for the man aside if you care about broader videogame issues that deal with the likes of what Thompson and other put out there.  For the matter of videogame violence to devolve into "but x is worse" or "but they do it to" is tantamount to failure.   

  42. TBoneTony says:

    Perhaps the best comment said.

    I personally don’t like people using scapegoats for their/others violent or criminal actions.

    But I can still silently think of the funny side that here we have Glenn Beck, someone who has been on JT’s side and been blaming GTA for currupting America’s youth and when someone does violence in the name of what he said on TV, well…it does make Beck look like a Hyporcrit if he tries to say that what he says on TV is not meant to be taken seriously.

     

  43. Paladin says:

    And exactly what does this have to do with video games?

     

     

    Seriously, is this the Daily Kos or something, I thought this was GamePolitics.

  44. Pixelantes Anonymous says:

    I have a very hard time defending or feeling in any way sympathetic towards a hatemongerer like Beck.

    There is a BIG difference between: "Your current President is the devil and we should take this country back to the Real People (tm)" and "Oh, I get to shoot pixelated prostitutes with a made up machine gun while holding a controller made out of plastic".

    http://pixelantes.blogspot.com/

  45. MaskedPixelante says:

    this is gonna be fun the next time we run into Jack. Violent video games don’t kill people, Conservatives do.

    —You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

  46. T5 says:



    The gamer’s defense has not (or at least should not) be about debasing games to the point of some interesting frivolity.  On the contrary, games as a medium and art are becoming serious forms of expression.  It is then not so much about games but the interpretation of speech and it is here where gamers largely fall into the self-responsibility camp.  It is not unreasonable to have expectations of self-responsibility either for gamers or pundit watcher.  Mr. Beck’s role is then immaterial in regards to this shooting in light of this model. 

     

    As I wrote earlier this is an opportunity for the community to stand on the previously enumerated principals implicit to gamers, a chance to show that this issue is important beyond the scope of mere partisan bickering.  Of course the alternative is the Thompsonian route, ostensibly we would just be making Mr. Beck our Take2 and lose much while gaining little to nothing.      

     

     

  47. MrKlorox says:

    "I think he makes them out to be more dangerous then they are, but that is all personal preference."

    His personal preference is to keep his job by attracting viewers with sensationalism and fear mongering. The news networks execs only care about that advertising revenue. If they had any moral fortitude, they would reflect it in their presentation.

  48. BearDogg-X says:

    Beck proves himself to be a hypocrite saying that with his anti-game comments last year.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.


    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  49. Doom90885 says:

    As much as I despise many of these political talk show hosts, especially conservatives I do not think it is right to blame Beck for being an influence. Its obvious that political talk for BOTH parties twist and turn everything into their personal image of the world and unfortunately people don’t realize this and take every word at face value. Despite what side of the political fence you are on you gotta take what they say with a grain of salt. Unfortunately I do think the average human being is a moron and all you gotta do is tell them what they want to hear or don’t want to hear and you get cases like this. But just like games don’t kill people and guns don’t kill people words don’t kill people this guy got all worked up and oulled off his act. And this guy wondered why there are talks about gun bans ? But to blame Beck or anyone else is just adding to the list of scapegoats. People just need to stop being goddamn sheep and turn their brains in the on position and think "does that make sense?" instead of blindly following whatever someone says to him/her.

     

    In Scapegoats We Trust

  50. Sukasa says:

    What i find interesting about some of these "conservative patriots" is that they seem to have all the solutions for government in their studios, but I dont see Rush or Sean actually getting off those cushy chairs, running for Congress and actually trying to "change" the goverment.  Its easy to sit in that studio, be the angry white man/woman complaining about government.  Its harder to actually run for goverment office and try to change the government.  If Sean, Rush, etc really want to claim they are patriots, they should probably on their next live show announce that they will be running for the senate seat of their state they live in.

  51. Sharzai says:

    While my cynical side is glad to see Beck take some blame for this that doesn’t mean he should be blamed for the shooting. Poplawski obviously had some mental problems and while Beck’s comments may have been what finally set Poplawski off if it hadn’t been Beck it would have just been someone else. While Beck and all other pundits should say that what they say is nothing more than their opinions they can’t really be faulted if some crazy person somewhere decides to take those opinions as fact and then act on them.

     

     

    Life doesn’t always make sense. If it did it would be boring.

  52. Dragoon1376 says:

    In some ways I think we’re having the exact arguments against Beck that those claiming video games are corruptive have been using for years.  And I think there in lies the danger.

    First secure an independent income, then practice virtue. -Greek Proverb

  53. Chaltab says:

    Sad thing is, aside from hating on games, I  kind of like Glenn Beck. He’s at least got a sense of humor, unlike Sean Hannity.

     

  54. lumi says:

    I find the sentiment some are expressing here that gamers should be more sympathetic or less "hypocritical" to be disturbing.  There is a huge problem with this notion, and it’s the crux upon which the gamer’s defense is built, when we’re the ones being accused of inciting violent/negative behavior.

    Glenn Beck purports, implicitly if not explicitly, to be a purveyor of facts.  There is a reasonable expectation on his part that, being on television and speaking to the masses, a very non-trivial number of people are going to take his words at face value.  He’s not a character in a video game, he’s not an actor playing a role in a television show or a movie, he’s not claiming to be a narrator reading someone’s work of fiction.  He, and the other talking heads like him, are stating opinions as facts, and they know that that’s how they’ll be received by the masses.

    So for him, or Nancy Grace, or Ann Coulter, or Keith Olbermann, or any of that crowd to be making the unsubstantiated, and often downright false statements that they make for no other purpose than inciting the public, furthering the public image most conducive to their own agendas, or simply for sensationalist ratings, is utterly irresponsible.  They are not games; they are real.  That means there’s a real responsibility behind what they tell the world.

  55. lumi says:

    "When I mentioned that these are "opinions, to be taken with a grain of salt" I figured that most people would have found such a statement implied even without it being explicitly stated."

    I believe, very strongly, that quite the opposite is true.  Unless people like Beck (and Oprah, and anyone else in that vein) bend over backwards to try and convey the notion that what they’re saying is just an opinion (and sometimes, a very uninformed opinion…), people are much more inclined to take their word as gospel, because as you said, it’s a means to validate their own personal opinions.

    >But getting back to the subject of responsibility, let’s look at a recent news story concerning Ms. Suleman and her eight test tube babies.

    My immediate response when I first learned of that story was "Wow…that’s awfully irresponsible at best, and criminally negligent at worst."  >_<

    >Would the journalist that published the unfavorable news to blame for the death threats and possible harm Ms. Suleman was subjected to?"

    Maybe I was watching the wrong news stations, but I don’t remember anything incendiary about the way that news was reported.  It was all part and parcel of the same news story: a woman who already had more children than she was financially capable of caring for and who was living in barely tolerable conditions, with family assistance, underwent fertility procedures to have another child…and ended up with eight.  All eight, and the mother, survived and were in stable condition (which is in and of itself newsworthy, to a degree).

    I think the difference between that story and what Beck does is that her situation raised the very legitimate question (IMHO) of whether or not we should have certain requirements for fertility treatments based on future child care.  That’s a serious subject that deserves scrutiny and debate.  No one on the news (that I watch, anyway…just the mainstream network stuff and Google) said that she should be lynched or beaten.  Just that it was questionable.

    There’s no rabble-rousing in the mainstream press that even begins to approach what the "opinion-only" talking heads whip up.  Why do they do it?  What purpose is there to spouting off the crap that they come up with, if not to incite?

    And if the only answer is "ratings", then:

    "How much over-exaggeration or understatement is acceptable and is it even punishable via criminal law or civil claims?"

    the answer sure as hell ought to be "none".

  56. T5 says:


    Now could be an interesting opportunity to gain an ally or at least lose an “enemy” instead of engaging in hypocritical finger pointing and name calling the community can reach out to Beck.  Now is the time not to scorn the man but to show him that it is indeed irresponsible and, frankly, silly to blame a grown man’s actions on something like a TV show…or videogame.  No need to hit him over the head with it but now is the time for the community to stand up and say “hey we are consistent, do we agree with Beck? Immaterial. Do we think it is insane to blame him? Yes.”  

     

    The community cannot beat the drum of self-responsibility only when it fits our agenda.  If the goal is larger acceptance then we stand up for Mr. Beck’s rights, because it’s what we believe.  There is of course the other route, pick on him, call him names, and indulge in what could be seen as a hollow victory that does nothing for the cause.   The issue of Videogames has to transcend petty political mudslinging, this is an opportunity that I hope the community can seize and seize properly. 

     

    tl;dr Gamers should be defending Beck, even JT if he were in this position.          

  57. black manta says:

    Ever since I heard this story, I had wondered how long it would be before someone mentioned games.  I was half expetcing the Metropolitan Moron of Miami to start spewing his rhetoric about this, in spite of the fact that Poplawski subscribes to the same extreme Right Wing school of crazy thought that Jack does.

    But this…this is interesting.  To see the Right-Wing extremists get questioned for a change in connection to a shooting pretty much flies in the face of everything Jack and people like him have said.  It makes me wonder if anything Jack wrote on Human Events could potentially incite violence in someone.  It just goes to show that anything could be a trigger to a deranged mind, not just video games.

    So how ’bout it, Jack?  What do you have to say to the assertion that Right-Wing rhetoric like yours could just as easily be responsible for a shooting tragedy?  Got any facts or statistics to cite to counter that?  Got clever retorts, insults or comebacks?  C’mon, I’m waiting.

    *Hears only the chirping of crickets*

    :Snorts: Yeah, that’s what I thought.

  58. TBoneTony says:

    People like Glenn Beck who tease and bully minority steriotypes with their "NEWS" are capable for getting people so emotional worked up that it is enough to make anyone crazy…

    He did this to gamers not so long ago.

    But after all that we have been though, I guess we had expected that someone outside the Videogame loop would have gone crazy.

    Now watch as you see Glenn Beck try to talk his way out of it by saying "I didn’t do it…"

    lol…

    Like he ever cares for other people anyway…

  59. GRIZZAM PRIME says:

    The rubber band’s on the other claw now eh? AHA!

    Don’t worry though Glenn, I won’t jump to conclusions like you tend to do. This wasn’t at all your fault, just like everything else isn’t the fault of Video Games or movies or music or books or whatever. A person shot people. This person chose to do that. It’s HIS OWN DAMN FAULT.

  60. Dragoon1376 says:

    lumi,

    I think the "fire" example is not a good analogy to use in this particular case since the effect is not the same.  Yelling "fire" or "he’s got a bomb" etc. has a more immediate impact because of the crazy people stampede that it may cause.  What Beck says, while it is inciteful and from a populist standpoint, does not have the same effect.  While we have an example of what a paranoid mind has taken Beck’s opinion to mean, I don’t see the two as being analogus.

    Now, I agree with your statement that there needs to be a responsibility for what we say as a whole, I find it a gray area simply because speech, like truth and perspective, are subjective matters.  How much over-exaggeration or understatement is acceptable and is it even punishable via criminal law or civil claims? 

    When I mentioned that these are "opinions, to be taken with a grain of salt" I figured that most people would have found such a statement implied even without it being explicitly stated.  Granted, I should have known better since some people believe the word of Oprah as gospel but I operate from a pretty cynical perspective.  That aside, I also think this points to a fundamental issue with our society that you pointed out as well: we tend to as a nation accept the opinions of public figures as a means of validating our own beliefs and opinions.  This extends to even the published material and you have only to look at an English core comp class to see how we tend to give unvalidated material credence that it shouldn’t have without backing itself up.

    But getting back to the subject of responsibility, let’s look at a recent news story concerning Ms. Suleman and her eight test tube babies.  The public opinion for her soured rather quickly as additional stories delved deeper into her situation and history.  Would the journalist that published the unfavorable news to blame for the death threats and possible harm Ms. Suleman was subjected to?  Another example would be numerous death threats that were phoned in to AIG after news of the bonuses came out.  Should the journalists be held accountable if they added their own perspective to the situation? How about the congressmen and women that spoke of pitchfork wielding mobs at AIG’s doors?

    While I don’t think of these as perfect examples, I think they kinda bring up a similar issue as the Glenn Beck situation does.  I can’t really come up with a straight answer myself because I feel like this is too big of a subject to be tackled without the aid of a good beer. 

    First secure an independent income, then practice virtue. -Greek Proverb

  61. pakoconk says:

    "Guns don’t kill people, People kill people" – from GTA3

    It’s the lack of culture that Glenn Beck shows that GTA series mock about the media. He should really sit down and play the game, and do a through analysis. It’s as if we blamed the wright brothers for 9/11 ! Ideas, media, tools… they are nothing until someone acts. But who can blame the media… society want’s TV to be a nanny, but it turns out it’s not a nanny, it’s not a mosnter either, it’s a reflection not everybody is ready to look at.

    And by the way Glenn… COME ON !!! Just that you CAN do something in a game doesn’t mean you have to, all those things that you can do in the game ( including running over people ) CAN be done in real life… but here’s an update: MOST PEOPLE HAVE COMMON SENSE ! And the game is rated for GROWN UPS, who should have common sense… 

    Oh well… so they say, common sense is not the most common of the senses.

    American media: Please stop treating your society as stupid children.

    American Society: Kick the media until they get it ! And start educating the rest of your society.

  62. HarmlessBunny says:

    …yeah well…as much as I want to agree with you, that asshole does have freedom of speech on his side. Once upon a time, talk like his would have you thrown in prison for treason. Today is a funny funny time….I won’t blame him for this little rampage, but I think ALL nutcase radio/t.v pundits (liberal and conservative alike) should becareful at the stuff they say.

  63. HarmlessBunny says:

    I’ll say this upfront….I think Glenn Beck is an asshole. He is pretty much a slanderous jackass who loves pointing his finger at others and looking like a complete hypocrite at best. However I won’t blame him for this tragedy. I’ll certainly blame the nutcase who gunned down officers of the law.

    As much as I think Glenn should have the finger pointed at him for once (especially after he enjoyed pointing the finger at video-games and movies not that long ago…), he has a right to spew his garbage. Now if I want to watch an entertaining pundit, I’ll watch Stephen Colbert (sure he is a fake pundit but funny none-the-less).

  64. lumi says:

    "They are not expected to adhere to any sort of journalistic intergrity"

    I strongly disagree.  At no point will we ever hear the talking heads on television, radio, or anywhere else, really…legitimately disclaiming their statements as "opinions, to be taken with a grain of salt", or anything to that effect.  In fact, the trite way in which "just my opinion" tags are ever applied is in such a way as to imply "you’re an idiot if you don’t agree with me".

    When you command a public media outlet and disseminate information in a serious manner (i.e. not "The Daily Show" or any of the other "fake news" programs…which are, ironically, the best place to get your news from, but I digress…), the majority of your audience is going to take your words at face value.  There is an inherent assumption on the part of the masses that if you’ve proven yourself worthy to have a television(radio/etc.) program, you know what you’re talking about.

    This is akin to shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre.  There has to be a responsibility behind the words we use.

  65. Icehawk says:

    I agree but there are problems with the idea. 

    1) The truth for the most part does not sell.  It is not colorful or interesting most of the time.

    2) You cannot get truthful based incidents to happen on cue, so making things up (or at least tweaking existing stories) tends to come into play. 

    It amuses in an in ironic way about how Glenn Beck and his ilk complain about big business and so forth yet the shows are paid for by commericials from.. you guessed it, big business. 

    Also it seems many of the posting types at foxnews.com are already borderline wacked and prone toward violence, they only need a small trigger to go off, oh but faux news and Glenn are not responsible. 

  66. Dragoon1376 says:

    Not every person on a TV program or behind a mic is a newscaster, just like you have the distinction between the news pages and the op ed columns in a newspaper.   Hosts like Beck are doing a show that highlights their own opinions and, as such, should be taken with a grain of salt.  They are not expected to adhere to any sort of journalistic intergrity… though we can argue that even journalists aren’t following even their own standards anymore.

    First secure an independent income, then practice virtue. -Greek Proverb

  67. Valdearg says:

    Funny little Dig I found about Beck and his "Defense" of this subject:

    His quote:

    Blaming TV or radio hosts for the nutjob who killed three Pittsburgh police officers over the weekend is like blaming a flight attendant after a terrorist takes down a plane.

    Commentary:

    "I’m just a flight attendant! I can’t be blamed if a terrorist takes down the plane!"

    Real Flight Attendant: In the event of a water landing, your seat cushion may be used as a floatation device.

    BeckAir Flight Attendant: Your pilot is Hitler! He’s bent on your destruction, and will kill you all! He must be stopped! Save America! Charge the cockpit!*

    *Metaphorically, as one might by having a "Tea Party!"

  68. Sai says:

    Worried about gun control? Go shoot a bunch of people. That’ll help.

    There is something to be said for the responsibility of newscasters. They should be reporting on, you know, the truth. Not glibly ligitimizing the paranoid worries of crazies in a medium that exists to inform the public of factual goings on in the world.

  69. Valdearg says:

    Ugh. I know how you feel about the whole Right Wing Local Radio availibility. In my area, its either the bland public radio, which, while it has a liberal tilt, its more for public service, rather than politics, or the right wing ignorance of the local repub talking heads, coupled with limbaugh, Hannity, and Lavine for spots they can’t fill with locals..

    I do listen to them, though, because the more I do, the more holes and misinformation I hear, and the best offense is a good defense, I suppose.. Lol

  70. Void Munashii says:

      As much fun as it would be to pin this on Beck, it would make me much more of a hypocrite than I am comfortable being. I listened to this tool for about a year before finding a more moderate host on another station (where I am, all of the local talk stations are right wing, so talk options were limited), and while much of what he said was ignorant and annoying, but I could hardly say they were dangerous.

      I’ve not seen Beck’s TV show, so I do not know how much crazy he is really bringing to the table now, but if Poplawski is a white supremacist then I suspect he already had more than enough crazy and evil to begin with. Beck may have been an inspiration, but if not him then it would have been something else.

      Being a Beck fan makes you no more dangerous than being a GTA fan. You’re either dangerous to begin with or you’re not.


    http://mallvillestory.blogspot.com

  71. Firebird says:

    DAMN STRAIGHT!

    Really, this guy is the same guy who’s sperm is shot into space for human repopulation once we face extinction…. (really!)

    I usually listen mostly to both John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, because you can’t take them seriously, yet they are somehow right.

    ….and we avoid all the paranoia. (At least until Stephen amasses his loyal army upon the world)

  72. Ratfunk says:

     I find it funny that the article linked in this story is it self being blasted on it’s own site for complete bias. It is stretching to try and connect invisible dots that don’t exist. On top of all of that, it has no evidence, and the majority of the story is focused on Alex Jones, not even Glenn Beck.

    I, for one, would like to see the video where Glenn Beck endorses this type of behavior. I watch Glenn Beck’s show (It’s true…) I don’t agree with everything he has to say, FAR from it. I have continually attacked him on his stance on video games, however, his stance isn’t without SOME merit.

    I have yet to see Beck call for the banning of video games. Mostly, he warns people about whats in them. I think he makes them out to be more dangerous then they are, but that is all personal preference. He is calling on concerned parents to do some damn parenting. IF you are worried about this type of stuff, about what effects GTA4 can have on your child, don’t get it.

    All in all, Beck is one of the more rational Political talk show hosts (This goes for the left and the right… but I think it is a requirment to be a dumbass to get your own show…) and I am hoping maybe I can get through to him a bit with this latest controversy.

    So please, take this with a grain of salt. Read up on the sources, it just doesn’t pan out. The guy was clearly disturbed to begin with. Glenn didn’t make him snap and kill those people any more then Video games and movies made anyone else snap.

  73. Vordus says:

    This is why the only pundit I listen to is Stephen Colbert. He just encourages people to vandalise Wikipedia and name things after him.

  74. BrandonL337 says:

    An ellipsees is 3 dots

    Grammar nazi to the rescue!

    There have always been motherf*ckers, there will always be motherf*ckers, but what we can’t do is let them control our motherf*cking lives. -John Oliver, December 1st, 2008

  75. Chaltab says:

    Bulls**t.
    By your logic, you could make the argument that someone who was already delusional could be inspired by a game to pull a Columbine. Hannity et al, no mater how much we disagree with them, can’t be blamed for the crazy actions of crazy individuals, even a little bit. Free speech doesn’t work that way.

    The guy was already a white supremacist; that should tell you all you need to know right there. White supremacists are collectively nuts from the get-go.

  76. Valdearg says:

    "What it does is unhinge fringe players from reality and dislodges them even further. When someone like Poplawski hears Glenn Beck touting One World Government and they’re gonna take your gun theories, they believe then that it must be true. And that’s when they really become crazy.”

    There is truth to this statement. Games are different. When we play games, we know we are playing games, and we know the content in said games is to be kept in the games.

    To these people, these.. Nutjobs, what folks like Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, and O’Reilly are telling them is the "truth." Its the real world for them. They trust these voices as voices of "reason" and they truly believe that what they are telling them is what is happening in the world.

    They believe in the non-existant "Fairness Doctorine." They believe that Barrack Obama is going to take all of thier guns. They believe that there will be "FEMA-managed concentration camps." They can’t see through the rhetoric and realize that these lies purpetrated by these guys are just overblown, right wing propaganda.

    Just head over to Foxnews.com and read some of the user comments there. It is really, really, frightening..

    I wish I could say I am surprised that this has happened. It’s sad, true, but given the incendiary, hateful, and oftentimes false rhetoric spewed by these propagandists, it doesn’t surprise me that a few loose screws were driven off the edge.

  77. BrandonL337 says:

    FOX news is not a network for honest reporting.

    There have always been motherf*ckers, there will always be motherf*ckers, but what we can’t do is let them control our motherf*cking lives. -John Oliver, December 1st, 2008

  78. BrandonL337 says:

    yEAH, THE GUY IS AN IDIOT AND A JACKASS, YOU KNOW WHAT THE WORST PART IS, MY DAD LOVES HIM.

    There have always been motherf*ckers, there will always be motherf*ckers, but what we can’t do is let them control our motherf*cking lives. -John Oliver, December 1st, 2008

  79. BrandonL337 says:

    Ooooh, the kids and their Cuuulture offend my moral windbag sensibilities BAN IT! BAN IT WITH FIRE!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!ONE!!!ELEVEN!!!  THE POWER OF CHRIST(Bush) COMPELLES YOU!

    There have always been motherf*ckers, there will always be motherf*ckers, but what we can’t do is let them control our motherf*cking lives. -John Oliver, December 1st, 2008

  80. Sukasa says:

    Actually, we were probably more violent as a people before the age of mass media (radio, tv, internet).  The only reason that it seems that violence is so bad now, is that there are far more humans alive then ever before and we live in an age of near instant commuication(so we hear about it faster and some people commit violence for their 15 mins of fame).  Its always interesting how people think back to the 50s as some mystical time that everything was great, when I would wager that those who lived in the 50s, probably believed past generations were better then what they had.  Perhaps in 50ish years, people will look back and say "man I miss the 1990s…things were simpler and society was better back in the day".

  81. Titantim says:

    I decided to look into it, and its kind of interesting. 

    On the department of justices’ website, they have a graph of violent crimes starting from 1973 (Which is long before the video game boom) until 2005.  The graph includes crimes from people aged 12 and above, so that includes all of those school room crazies.

    Have a look:

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

     

  82. Trevor McGee says:

    Not to mention that he just recently made a comment to his viewers equating Obama and his cabinet to vampires and said that they had to drive a stake through their heart. Whether he meant to or not, that can easily be misconstrued by one of his many nut job viewers, such as Richard Poplawski, as encouraging them to attempt to physically harm or kill Obama or any one of his team.

  83. shady8x says:

    short answer yes… actually it might be worse…

    funny how you mention 1930’s. I seem to remember some criminals existing back then like Al Capone etc…

    You know what is really to blame? Books!!!

    The next time you walk down the street and see a window that was smashed as an act of vandalism, ask yourself if you think that would have happened if Books was like it was in 5,000bc 2,000bc or even 0000ad or even 1,000ad…

    In fact, before language existed, humans were never violent at all… I can prove this by the very fact that no records of violence exist from those days…

    People always like saying well before this we were so much better… the truth is that is a lie… people have always been violent and they are likely less violent today then they were before(look at crime statistics).

  84. Titantim says:

    I don’t agree with Beck on most things, but what he said on the video does have some truth behind it.  Obviously GTA is the scapegoat because its the most popular violent game on the market (Even though there are more violent games out there).

    He doesn’t blame video games solely, but all of pop-culture.  And I do agree with that.  If you look back at older television like Batman with Adam West.  People would say "Gosh Darnit" and "Holey moley".  Now we have shows that push the limits on violence and language which has lead to people becoming naturally more violent.

    The next time you walk down the street and see a window that was smashed as an act of vandalism, ask yourself if you think that would have happened if TV, Music, etc was like it was in 1930s, 40s, 50s…

    And just to let you know, I AM a huge gamer and have all the GTA’s released to date.

     

  85. Neeneko says:

    I am not sure I agree there.

    The differnce here is that Glenn Beck is activaly encouraging these conspiracy fantasies as reality.  And encouraging people to believe that an evil world government is coming for them is well known to result in violence…..

  86. Vake Xeacons says:

     I’m just as sick as anyone of Glenn’s hate-flinging. I have to agree; if we blame Beck for inspiring a rampage, we’re just dropping ourselves down to his level. 

    He’s an idiot, but as much as I hate to say it, he’s got every right to be one.

  87. Valdearg says:

    I dont see any ad hominem attacks, there. He just pointed out the fact that he was defending Glenn Beck, despite the fact that he will point fingers at gamers as soon as anything happens. Beck is as bad as JT.

  88. Grifter_tm says:

    One way or the other, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Beck and his cohorts are inciting violence from both sides of the fence. Way to go Right-Wing media, way to go.

  89. JoeCB1991 says:

    GP, I was pissed off about Becks GTA video too, but I doubt that Glenn Beck influenced this crazy bastard to kill the cops.

    First, he said that the FEMA Camps were fake this week, and the Tea Parties are not organized by Beck, he is just helping to promote them.

    And like I said, I doubt that Glenn Beck influenced this guy. He was crazy before he listened to Beck. He was already a white supremacist and a conspiracy theorist, and I bet that he has been for a long time, so don’t try to find someone else to blame for what this guy did because it was his fault. Something has been wrong with him for a long time, and that is why he did it IMO.

    Libertarian Republican from Mesa Arizona MySpace http://profile.myspace.com/32118614 Facebook http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1441642492&ref=name

  90. londinio says:

    Glenn Beck.

     

    You are full of shit. And you know it.

     

    Either way parents should be informed.

  91. Nocturne says:

    I had no idea who this guy was, fortunately tonights episode of Charlie Brookers ‘Newswipe’ covered him and now I just can’t believe this guy is on TV and being taken seriously.

  92. JustChris says:

    CNN probably hired Glenn Beck because they felt the pressure by FOX to meet some kind of hard-line conservative quota.

    I wonder how many people have seen Glenn Beck’s show on calling video game bloggers "losers".

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOkRI5pGT9U

    He tells video game bloggers (and then gamers in general) that they are a waste of resources, all while sitting in front of cameras and a fancy studio made just for him.

    GameSnooper

  93. BearDogg-X says:

    It’s ironic and in a way, justice, that the egg sucking dog Glenn Beck now knows how it feels to be a victim of a witch hunt.

    That being said, he’s still a no-talent assclown.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.


    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  94. Sukasa says:

    Sum it up…extremes on both ides of the aisle are idiots and the world will likely be a better place after they killed each other off and us in the middle rule the world!!!

  95. Dragoon1376 says:

    The nutjobs on the left have the same capacity for violence as the nutjobs on the right.  The problem is the general stereotype of the Bible-thumping, gun-toting, militia man is contrasted against the aging smelly hippy.  A lot of your eco terrorists have a far leftist agenda and resort to bombs or other means to vandalize and terrorize.

    But I agree with you.  It is an issue because it shows people are not being critical thinkers.  They simply accept the message instead of contemplating it.

    First secure an independent income, then practice virtue. -Greek Proverb

  96. vellocet says:

    This is not a left/right argument.

    I don’t agree with censoring pundits like this, but the general populace should be educated about them.  Instead, they’re being educated BY them.

    And what are they saying? You must fight tyranny in any way you can.  The government is against you.  You have to take it back. (I’m paraphrasing)

    And the right tend to have more guns than the left.

    There are definitely nutjobs on the left too, but they just stop shaving their armpits.

    This is significantly different than videogames because none of the games you play tell you to go out and kill people/that the world they portray is real/you are in real danger/go cook a delicious meal.

  97. Nekowolf says:

    Aye, and I try not to fall into that. I know I have said stupid shit before, and I own up to it.

  98. Nekowolf says:

    Not necessarily. It’s not like I’m saying, eliminate them or anything. There will still be the media, and there will still be mainstream media.

    However, if a pundent of one of their stations says something inflammitory, the pundent IS responsible for what they said and must be held to that. Let’s take, for example, Michele Bachmann. On an episode of Hardball, she basically admitted that leftists are anti-American. Later, she claimed that a "trap" was "laid" and she walked into it, saying Chris Matthews is responsible for her rhetoric coming off as "anti-American." She was not taking responsibility; she was trying to cast it off.

    Should she be punished for what she said? No, of course not. But, she said what she said, and instead of facing up to it, tried to shrug it off.

  99. DraginHikari says:

    That’s pretty much the downside of the free of speech… you’re speech is protected… but almost all speech is protected regardless of how it is precieved.

  100. JHorel says:

    It seems these days that anyone and everyone want freedom of speech to mean "Freedom from responiblity for my speech".

  101. DraginHikari says:

    On the contary, I prefer making fun of both the far left and far right equally XD  They’re all crazy at the end of the day.

    People always tend to look at their own person views before logic, it’s human nature.

  102. DraginHikari says:

    Heh, if we tired to hold the majority of media outlets responsible for the things they say there probably wouldn’t be any major media at all XD

  103. Dragoon1376 says:

    The conservative base hardly has the lion’s share of blind devotees that will cling to their ideals no matter what.  I can think of plenty of individuals that your rant could apply to on the leftist side and they too defy logic if you attempt to debate with them.  Simple fact: people are ridiculous in general.

    First secure an independent income, then practice virtue. -Greek Proverb

  104. Valdearg says:

    You don’t take pundits at face value. However, for every one of you, there are thousands who do. Not ALL conservatives are as stupid as alleged, however, you won’t convince me that the majority of them are as smart as you. Like I’ve said before, dig a little deeper. Read some comments on conservative blogs and foxnews. These people will cling to the teet of any and all conservative punditry that they can find. It is rediculous, especially when trying to debate with them. They defy logic.

  105. Chaltab says:

    You’re acting like conservatives are stupid sheep. The thing is we DO think for ourselves. We don’t take everything the pundits say at face value. People who blindly follow the words of others without any thought to it are likely already paranoid. If White Supermacy and Glen Beck had not been there, the guy would have found some other way to nurse his paranoia.

  106. Valdearg says:

    Look, I am not in favor of censoring them, if thats what you think. In fact, I squarely place the blame on the nutjob’s shoulders. I’m just saying that it very well could be that these right wing propagandists could be part of the reason he was as afraid and paranoid as he was.

    Believe it or not, I listen to Sean Hannity on the way home every day from work. I know what he says, and I can see how his words can influence the less intelligent. He claims every day on his program, "Look out! The government is coming to take your money, your guns, and your freedom!" If you don’t think that some people out there take that to heart and could easily turn out like this guy did, you are pretty damned ignorant of the world around you.

    You have to realize that it doesn’t take much to convince these wingnuts that the worlds going to end. And, as I clearly stated, the difference between the video game argument and this is that for them, these politics, gun revocation fears, and other various right wing scaremongering are in the real world. These guys are already afraid of all kinds of crap, and it only takes a few words to start a firestorm. A lot of these nutjobs are very, VERY succeptible to the opinions and words of people they trust. They don’t think for themselves and they can’t see through the lies, like most sane people can.

     

  107. Nekowolf says:

    I must disagree. They CAN be blamed for it, because they DO present what they report as factual.

    Let’s take the KKK. Sure, you can be racist, and not do anything with it. But then, you get a group who comes in, fuels that racism, and basically incites action.

    What I’m trying to say is, the question isn’t "was he fucked up?" No, rather, "would he have been AS fucked up?" I won’t pretend to know, but there is the possibility that, no. He wouldn’t have been.

    Now I am very leftist. I don’t support censorship. However, just because there is free speech, does not mean that we must forego responsibility for what we say. If anything, we must be held to even higher standards of responsibility. And Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush, the whole lot of them, are responsible for both what they say and what they report.

    I’m not calling for punishment. There is no way to truly know how much of Beck’s influence caused him to shoot those cops. But, I will call for criticism, and I will call for them to be held responsible, for what Foxs’ troupe report and preach.

    Edit: Just to make clear, though, I am not supporting or denying the influence Beck had on this man. That is something I simply cannot, reasonably, call on.

  108. DeepThorn says:

    Yeah, the propaganda filled Fox is all anyone needs to become a mad man, and that unemployment is actually 15% and not 8%, that would do it too.  Government isn’t counting people doing things for small cash to barely get buy while still looking for a job in their unemployment statistics.

    Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
    How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls

  109. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    Yay, another Mountain Dew fan! *chugs his MD*

    ——————————————————————————

  110. illspirit says:

    And in reverse, where were the people feigning outrage at Beck for the last 8 years? None of them seemed to mind when lefties made a masturbatory assassination fantasy film about Bush and burned him in effigy. None of them made a peep about all the talk of a revolution against their tinfoil-induced McBushHitleCheneyBurton conpiracy, nor, towards the elections last year, threatening a race/class war if Obama lost. If Beck is responsible for the nutball in Pittsburg, then Kos, Arianna Huffington, Naomi Wolf, Olbermann, et al must responsible for:

    *Mulitple assassination attempts against Bush

    *Bombing army recruitment offices

    *Firebombing Sarah Palin’s church

    *Riots outside of political conventions in ’04 and ’08

    *The cop killer in Oakland a few weeks ago and his far-left backers in the Uhuru Movement

    *etc..

    Why all the outrage over dead cops now anyway? Or are cop killers like Mumia and Ayers only cool because they’re on the left?

  111. Sukasa says:

    The thing is most of these people are just talk.  Go over to the website townhall, and you see worse talk (everything from revolt to killing every liberal(or anyone to the left which if you are far right, everyone is left) in govt and citizens).  If they actually had a pair of balls to revolt, they would just do it.  Personally, I’m at the thought that they need to stop complaining about revolting and just do it, otherwise shut their cake holes, as one of my old drill sergeants would tell us.  The country didn’t die under Bush, like Dems thought it would and it won’t likely die under Obama’s term, like repubs think it will.  Even if it does "die", all countries fail at some point in the history of the world.  It’s going to happen someday in the US, we just all usually hope that its way after we die.

  112. Flyinmx says:

     I really don’t like what I hear from these commentators, especially the calls for a "revolution" and to "take back the country from the government". They are inflammatory, and incite violence (ie. the guy who shot up a church to kill liberals last year). Where were these people over the last 8 years? 

    There is a major difference between these words they spew and honest criticism. 

  113. SeanB says:

    It’s odd that your so quick to defend glenn’s hate mongering, when he’s so quick to point the finger at us.

  114. sirdarkat says:

     Thank you, I thought the same thing though it is great to see them trying to blame him he’s not at fault any more than a game.

  115. King of Fiji says:

    Amen to that.  If anything Glenn Beck’s souped up for Fox News zanyness would make one’s brain melt to the point that they are essentially a vegetable in which they wouldn’t be able to pick up a foam cup, let alone a gun.

     

     

  116. Conster says:

    *Arrives a at fork in the road, ponders, and takes the "moral higher ground" route* If a TV rant is enough to drive you over the edge, you’re fucked up enough that the TV rant shouldn’t be blamed, really.

  117. _Captain_Marvel_ says:

    Blaming Glenn Beck for this shooting rampages is no different than blaming video games for VT and other shooting rampages . The only thing I can say against Beck in this case is how on one show he says(ar atleast implies) that video games cause school shootings yet on another show he contradicts that by saying only the shooter is responsible for shooting rampages . Maybe Beck should take his own advice and say what he means and mean what he says .

  118. RevenChrist says:

    You heard it here first, people, Glenn beck is a dangerous influence who brainwashes our innocent babies into killing!!!!

    /sarcasm

    "Who I am is not important… my message is"

  119. JessJames says:

    *Get’s temporarily lost in a pleasant little personal fantasy…*

    "Media broadcaster who has publically voiced that video games are a direct cause of violent acts, is blamed of the same thing, and is forced to publically voice that perhaps external influences don’t really cause these things after all".

    Ah that would be wonderful. A first step in stopping all this witch hunting nonsense. *whistful sigh*

    Oh well… back to reality.

Comments are closed.