“The Great One” brings another liberal attack on a conservative voice, Glenn Beck, to our attention:

Glenn Beck: a Cause for Concern

James Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute

Glenn Beck represents a truly troubling trend in television journalism.

Yeah…who let all these #%$@ conservatives in here, anyway?

Since May 2006, the radio talk show host has had his own one hour nightly programme on CNN's Headline News channel. While the network may have hoped that Beck's flamboyant style would increase ratings, the cost to their integrity has been staggering.

More staggering than shilling for Fidel Castro? Or airing video of American troops gunned down by jihadists?

It is important to note from the outset that Beck doesn't stand alone. The insertion of the personalities and style of radio talkshow hosts into mainstream television news programming has been taking place for a number of years now. Their crude, cynical and cutting edge commentary, their feigning the role of the common man and their inflammatory "us versus them" rhetoric is now standard fair on many of the major networks.

“We let ‘em have talk radio all to themselves; isn’t that enough?” I wonder if Mr. Zogby gets worked up over “crude commentary” elsewhere. I love the tired “feigning the common man role” and “inflammatory” line. Of course, liberals never do anything inflammatory…

The result of this trend is evident on a number of levels. There has been a coarsening and dumbing down of our political discourse on several issues of national importance. When Beck refers to President Jimmy Carter as a "fathead" or speaks of Saudi leaders as "nut-jobs", serious discussion is displaced by crude jabs.

Personally, I disapprove of calling Carter a fathead. “Anti-Semitic disgrace” would be much better. And what should we call Saudi leaders?

There is the additional problem that instead of educating the public, this new breed of television pundits reduces issues to their lowest common denominator, thereby reinforcing preexisting, uninformed biases. Never shy to share an unenlightened view, Beck, for example, will note "I'm not an expert, but..." and then proceed to make his case using a mishmash of cliches that reflect the prejudices of conventional wisdom.

It sure would be nice if Zogby would make an attempt to show where Beck’s so uninformed…

While much of the same could be said about a number of other similar personalities that now populate the airwaves, Beck comes with a significant difference. I have carefully reviewed the transcripts of Beck's shows and his so-called obsessive crusade against radical Islam left me both horrified and profoundly concerned.

“Glenn Beck hates Muslims.” Sooo…..what’s unique about this attack, exactly? Since when does the Left ever give Rush, Hannity, Medved, O’Reilly, Prager, Ann, or anybody else on the Right the benefit of the doubt when challenging aspects of Islam?

'Evil 10 per cent'

In just the past two months, for example, one half of Beck's shows have focused on matters Muslim.

What’s up with that? It’s not like the free world’s survival is threatened by an Islam-based global movement or anyth—oh, wait…

Beck insists that he is not opposed to all Muslims, only what he refers to as the "10 per cent who are evil". He then counters this observation by stating that the vast majority of good Muslims have been cowered into silence by the extremist 10 per cent, so that they too stand indicted by their cowardice. Only when they do speak out, Beck says, will radical Islam be defeated and the rest of us be safe from their scourge. The net result of this circumlocution is that the majority of Muslims are to blame.

10%? Judging by recent history, Glenn might actually be generous there. And we know the fanatics have a chokehold on speech & learning in the Middle East, so what’s so out of line in the above statement? Rather than an indictment of the world’s entire Muslim population, he’s reaching out to reasonable Muslims. I would guess that Beck actually said (or meant) something more along the lines of “only when they can speak out” (truth be told, I don’t actually watch Beck’s show that much. The couple times I have it didn’t seem as interesting as the standard O’Reilly or H&C lineup. I do enjoy is radio show when I catch it, though, and his book is pretty good.).

When Beck is not venting his own prejudiced view of Islam, he invites on-air guests who amplify his views. They are of three types: Israelis, right-wing Americans with a long-established axe to grind against Arabs and Muslims, and lastly, a handful of Muslims who are largely alienated and self-styled outcasts who have found their shtick striking out against their co-religionists.

I see; it’s those %$#@ Jews again! “Conservatives hate Muslims”…blah, blah, blah. As if the anti-Semitism wasn’t bad enough, is Zogby trying to demonize true reasonable Muslims, many of whom often risk their lives to stand up to evil? Disgraceful; don’t you dare tell me I can’t question this man’s patriotism.

His right-wing guests or Israelis, like former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (who was Beck's guest for an entire hour on a special programme that aired three times in one month) are only too happy to reinforce Beck's views. His Muslim guests similarly serve to validate Beck's complaint about the broader Muslim community. In all of this, there is not even the pretence of balance.

Hmm…the former leader of Israel, who spent years battling Islamofascism: I can’t quite put my finger on why anybody would want his take on current affairs…

The impact has been predictable and frightening. After I raised some concern that ABC's Good Morning America was hiring Beck to serve as a commentator on that once respected programme, I received a taste of what Beck's impact has been. E-mails from Beck's supporters have called me "an animal Muslim" (I'm a Catholic).

Now why would someone mistake Zogby for a Muslim apologist? I’m stumped….

They've told me that I don't belong in America (when in fact my family has lived in this country for over 100 years, serving in every branch of the military),

I don’t know about you, but I’d rather not have this guy in my country.

and that I am shielding terrorists by refusing to protest against them (wrong on both counts, but my critics have obviously never read my denunciations of terrorism and terrorists).

Well, he’s already demonized heroic Muslims who condemn the terrorists. And his further views on the War on Terror? It’s our fault Muslims don’t like us, and Jimmy Carter is reasonable on Israel-Palestine. Nope, no terrorist-shielding here…

And it is this that concerns me. We are, in fact, engaged in a troubling conflict against extremism fuelled by religious fervour, both ours (OUR religious fervor?!) and theirs. What this period and this conflict require is intelligent discussion, not inflammatory rhetoric. To guide us through this, we need journalists like Walter Cronkite, Edgar R. Murrow and Peter Jennings; we don't need flame-throwers like Sean Hannity, Don Imus and Glenn Beck. Unfortunately, it's the latter we are getting more of. And it is this I find disturbing.

Cronkite: Nope.

Jennings: Nope.

Murrow: Good Lord, no!

We don’t need “flame-throwers.” Translation: “Won’t those conservatives shut up already?”