Compounding Sins

I missed it the first time around when Glenn Beck called Hillary Clinton a "stereotypical bitch." Now I see via Brendan Nyhan that he followed up later explaining "I never said that Hillary Clinton -- excuse the language -- I never said that Hillary Clinton was a bitch. I said she sounded like one." Which, if you check the transcript, is arguably true, but hardly a defense.

Which brings around a larger question I don't think I've aired on this blog: Why on earth does Glenn Beck have that show on CNN Headline News? I'm not what you'd call a regular reader, but there's outrageous crap like this on every time I tune in. They just stop doing regular news for a little while and give us all our daily does of GOP talking points, misogyny, Arab- and Muslim-bashing, etc. And for what? Because the right-wing cable news niche seemed empty?

Comments

Beck is popular because he garners ratings by appealing to a huge demographic. Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and others are doing the same thing. You want to talk to Americans en masse? Look into the camera or talk to the microphone while keeping in mind your audience is a rancid crowd of misogynistic, homophobic, bigoted, illiterate, violent, sociopathic, NASCAR loving cesspool of human scum. You know, citizens of the United States.

Posted by steve duncan | March 19, 2007 9:33 AM

"Why on earth does Glenn Beck have that show on CNN Headline News?"

Yup. As steve duncan notes, Beck has that show because he gets ratings.

"Because the right-wing cable news niche seemed empty?"

Yup, again. Fox is not the ratings leader in the field by a long shot by coincidence...

Posted by Petey | March 19, 2007 9:46 AM

I dunno how much high ratings explains about Glenn Beck. Look here. He does worse than Nancy Grace on his same network. He does worse than Wolf Blitzer or Larry King (or his Fox competition) in his same timeslot. And he does worse than Keith Olberman, cable television's token liberal.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | March 19, 2007 9:53 AM

"He does worse than Nancy Grace on his same network."

Nancy Grace is pretty damn fascistic herself, tho she focuses on domestic right-wingism rather than foreign.

Posted by Petey | March 19, 2007 10:00 AM

CNN eventually needs to steer its programming in the FOX direction. That's where the money is. You have to build a brand and Beck is a brick in the wall. They're not going to hire away Hannity or O'Reilly so they have to develop their own nutjobs. Beck doesn't have to have stellar numbers, he just has to serve as proof CNN is a fascist, fear mongering alternative to FOX. He does that well enough to justify his show.

Posted by steve duncan | March 19, 2007 10:05 AM

I'm not sure what the claim your would want to make is, MY. The people paying Beck are in business to make money. I can imagine any number of reasons why Beck's value might be greater than his relative market share; maybe, for example, his viewers are more likely to make large purchases than Grace's. Maybe the expectation is that, like Olberman, his ratings will grow. I have no idea. But it's hard to imagine that one gross number, analyzed over a brief period of time, is enough to sustain a claim that HLN isn't in it for the money.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 19, 2007 10:06 AM

"CNN eventually needs to steer its programming in the FOX direction. That's where the money is."

Interestingly, I think CNN is constrained from going there. I think they've got a corporate political consciousness that prevents them from taking the main CNN channel in that direction, even if there are more advertising dollars there in the short-term.

I think they're willing to chase those dollars with HLN, but not with the main CNN brand, which seems a smart compromise to me.

Posted by Petey | March 19, 2007 10:11 AM

Glenn Beck's feedback form on CNN.com:
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?69

We should at least be able to have some good-looking blond spouting racist nonsense. I feel like he's pretty unattractive for CNN.

Posted by Nancy Grace | March 19, 2007 10:12 AM

If Glenn Beck wasn't there to ask Muslim U.S. Congressmen if they were traitors or not, do you think they'd just volunteer the information?

Posted by aleks | March 19, 2007 10:14 AM

If Glenn Beck wasn't there to ask Muslim U.S. Congressmen if they were traitors or not, do you think they'd just volunteer the information?

If he used that as his tag line, I might actually watch.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 19, 2007 10:16 AM

the decline of CNN and Headline News is one of the saddest things that's happened to this country in the last decade.

Posted by right | March 19, 2007 10:19 AM

CNN eventually needs to steer its programming in the FOX direction. That's where the money is.

The money is in differentiating its programming from FOX by staking out a different market niche. Think of the newspaper industry: When there are two newspapers in a market, they tend to evolve different political orientations, one conservative and one less so.

Richard Tedlow has written about the stages of market development, a rubric that works well for understanding CNN's problems. CNN invented the mass market in its niche. Prior to CNN, there were a number of individual news programs at the local and network level, but never a channel where you could get 24-hour news. Per Tedlow, FOX wisely decided not to challenge CNN at this game, but instead to proceed to the third stage, the development of niche markets. To a considerable extent, CNN is still trying to compete for the mass market it used to own, instead of accepting the logic of niche markets and differentiating itself from FOX in different niches. It may not seem rationale, but CNN wouldn't be the first business to adjust slowly to changing market conditions.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | March 19, 2007 10:21 AM

the decline of CNN and Headline News is one of the saddest things that's happened to this country in the last decade.

Chicago used to be Mecca for mountain-climbers, but things have really gone to Hell since it got so flat.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | March 19, 2007 10:24 AM

The ratings stuff seems true, but given that MY is so even handed and such and he's outraged about what righties say about Hillary!, I suppose MY is going to tone it down about Dick Cheney in order to get with the civility program given that partisan nutjobbery is a bad thing.

Posted by j mct | March 19, 2007 10:36 AM

j mct, nutjobbery involves a deluded, irrational approach to policy, politics and your political opponents. Saying inflammatory things about Hillary to rile your base is nutjobbery. Now, say your fears are well founded and your adversary a menace to the world. Caustic language and suggestions are then acceptable. For example, Dick Cheney should be torn limb from limb and fed to hyenas. That's not nutjobbery in action for he truly deserves it.

Posted by steve duncan | March 19, 2007 10:49 AM

Because jmct, heavens knows the standards for a respected television news source are exactly the same as the standards for a guy on his blog, and heavens knows MY is every bit a rhetorical extremist as Glenn Beck. I am always impressed when people cut through all the noise and clutter in daily life and see the parallels that bring everything together.

Posted by matt | March 19, 2007 10:51 AM

Glenn Beck is a neocon who supports the illegal war in Iraq and the third-world invasion of the United States.

If you want to see what REAL conservatives are up to, check out:

http://www.conservativeexodusproject.com/

.

Posted by David | March 19, 2007 11:03 AM

"I never said that Hillary Clinton -- excuse the language -- I never said that Hillary Clinton was a bitch. I said she sounded like one."

Wow, Glenn Beck sounds like a complete asshole. Pardon the language, as well as the obviousness of the response.

Posted by RSA | March 19, 2007 11:07 AM

Steve:

If MY's comments about Dick Cheney appeal to you and you want to see what a partisan nutjob looks like, I suggest you look in your mirror, though not seeing a partisan nutjob there is also part of the definition. You can pick a right wing example of this if you like, and I don't think you need my help to find one.

On the other hand, in order to be a successful pundit, one that gets 'ratings' however that's defined. A pundit who isn't actually a partisan nutjob, but has to eat, I suppose one has to take into account Adlai Stevenson's retort to the observation that he was the thinking man's candidate, whether one is a lefty or righty.

Posted by j mct | March 19, 2007 11:19 AM

Hmmm, I'll hazard a guess here and say being the thinking man's candidate is most definitely NOT a campaign slogan that'll have the electorate flocking to your speeches. Bush is criticized as an intellectual lightweight but he was smart enough to avoid echoing Adlai. Or maybe he was just avoiding getting rapped for false advertising.

Posted by steve duncan | March 19, 2007 11:28 AM

My theory is that he's trying to get fired and CNN is sadistically keeping him on.

Posted by norbizness | March 19, 2007 11:38 AM

Steve:

I've just thought up something you may or may not find 'smart' about TV and radio political commentary via the tried and true deduce the world entire from introspection method.

I've never been a huge consumer of 'political controversialists' but I used to be able to listen to such stuff on the radio and watch it on TV, but now I just cannot. Peering deep into mine own soul, the reason why I can't anymore is rather homespun, the Internet is now here, and since I can read much faster than anyone can possibly talk, I can't sit through a TV or radio show anymore, just because it's too slow, though I will read a transcript of such a show, or podcast I guess, if posted.

If my 'I am a microcosm of the world entire' method works here, what should one predict would be the effect of limitless political commentary in written form being available on the internet on how 'smart' TV and radio political commentary is?

Posted by j mct | March 19, 2007 11:50 AM

As the other commenters have pointed out, this is all about money; you're being mighty naive, Matt. Everyone's chasing the Faux News demographic. Remember when MSNBC (I think) hired the despicable Michael Savage? He had to tell an AIDS patient "I hope you die" to get canned. That's how gross this stuff has gotten.

Posted by beckya57 | March 19, 2007 11:52 AM

Re Glenn Beck

Of late, Beck is attacking immigrants to an extent that makes Lou Dobbs sound like a soft headed left wing liberal. Just last week, he teed off on Dubya for referring to immigration while in Mexico as migration.

Re Nancy Grace

Surprisingly enough, Ms. Grace is politically a liberal Democrat who is tough on criminals and criminal defense lawyers. Not unlike a Democratic version of Rudy Giuliani.

Posted by SLC | March 19, 2007 12:00 PM

Isn't bitchiness the female version of Giuliani's appeal to conservatives? The self-deluded mysogyny is laughable.

Posted by Reality Man | March 19, 2007 12:41 PM

Beck is actually really good at what he does...sugar-coating vicious extremism so it seems "reasonable". He's the closest thing to an heir to the genius of Rush Limbaugh, who is a brilliant path-breaking innovator in that department. I think CNN is taking a gamble on developing the next Limbaugh, and hoping Beck really catches fire.

Posted by MQ | March 19, 2007 12:53 PM

"Beck is actually really good at what he does...sugar-coating vicious extremism so it seems "reasonable"."

That's Sailer's shtick as well.

Posted by Reality Man | March 19, 2007 1:05 PM

My guess is that cable televison news will continue its rightward trend. As the left and center are drawn increasingly to online sources of news, television will become more and more the preserve of the couch potato right.

As Matt notes, he is not a regular viewer. As the networks continue to lose people like Matt, they will be forced to hire more people like Beck to compete for those who are watching.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 19, 2007 1:13 PM

What effect will the availability of written political/news commentary via the internet have on television ratings? I'd say minimal to none. People by and large don't read anything of substance anymore. Discounting the more sensationalist fare a great first run of a nonfiction book might be in the low 1000's. Hazard a guess covering the last year what percentage of the populace has read a nonfiction book cover to cover. Now, what percent comprehended it? And then went on to engage others regarding the subject matter in an attempt to explore and debate the intracacies and meaning of the publication? Maybe 1%? Nah, that's being a bit generous, we're not talking about France here are we? One half of one percent? Yeah, that's about right. The internet is not going to slow the FOX/FOX clone onslaught. You have to have a populace that can read for that to happen. I bet 78% of citizens can tell you who won the NEXTEL Cup last year. Yeehaw! China and India are quaking in their boots.

Posted by steve duncan | March 19, 2007 1:47 PM

Hey, I'm not saying that Glenn Beck is a racist, misogynistic moron. I'm just saying that when I listen to him on his show, he *sounds* like a racist, misogynistic moron.

Posted by Robert Earle | March 19, 2007 2:36 PM

After watching Beck on Howie Kurtzs' show yesterday, I had two questions. First, like MY, do we really need another rightwing talking points spouter on cable news with no counter balancing flaming liberal? Second, why do we need a moron like Beck on TV regardless of his politics? His whole schtick is the "I'm just a regular guy voicing my opinion and I don't care about political correctness." Mostly he comes across as the idiot in the bar blathering on about the U.N. and black helicopters. Couldn't they find anyone with an I.Q above 65?

Posted by Col Bat Guano | March 19, 2007 2:41 PM