Anderson Cooper: The Progressive Glenn Beck

[Pangloss]

Bascule asked recently why I haven't posted more examples of liberal commentators doing what Glenn Beck does. The answer isn't because they aren't doing it, it's because I'm not obsessed with finding such examples. But I did happen to catch a few minutes of AC360 tonight while puttering around the house, and I was rather shocked at what I saw.

 

Anderson Cooper 360 is touted as "CNN's premiere nightly news program", not commentary! (you can see this on the page immediately below the video linked below) (Does Fox News do this too, now -- calling their commentary/entertainment programs "news"? Yeesh!)

 

I found a video on the CNN web site that contained most of the piece I saw on the screen:

 

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/ac360/site/2010/05/18/cooper.podcast.monday.cnn

 

The piece on the oil spill runs from the beginning to about 10.5 minutes, after which it's followed with one of those amusing stories they usually do on local news where they ask children to look at a sheet of paper depicting black and white children and ask them to point out which ones are the stupid or bad ones, and which ones are the smart or good ones, and of course the kids, presented with an obvious non-sequitur, seem to prefer to point to the black ones (especially when, as Cooper admits late in the piece, they're prepped in advance that they'll be asked for an opinion about race).

 

But let's get to the really fun stuff. The main piece was on the oil spill, and it was a doozy. Here's a few bullets of what Cooper does in this piece that I just sort of jotted down shorthand while watching the video:

 

- Accusing BP of not wanting to know how bad the spill is (no evidence)

- "BP is spinning a story" (sarcasm)

- BP executives "trumpeting" the story

 

- Furthers unsubstantiated stories of "huge plumes under the surface"

(ABC has interviewed the scientist who found those plumes who says that they may be extremely insubstantial)

 

- Reports that they're now capturing 1000 barrels per day, then says "the truth is they have no idea" (accurate), then goes on to report that "leading experts" analyzed the video and say that there could be up to 70,000 bpd coming out. Again, accurate, but that's not a factual figure, it's simply a different estimate, and not a scientific measurement -- there is no way to gauge the accuracy of those estimates either, and they have just as much reason to overestimate as BP has to underestimate.

 

- Focused on BP statement that they were not going to make additional efforts to calculate the flow right now because it's not relevant to the response effort. This is perfectly reasonable, and Cooper uses an obvious straw man to ridicule this statement and accuse them of not wanting to know the truth, which is not logical. He goes on to draw a false analogy about needing to know how bad a fire is to fight it (not if the fire is clearly spewing out of three small point sources, bud).

 

- "You're telling us you can't solve a problem and investigate it at the same time?" (outrageously inflationary straw man)

 

- "This is like Katrina when politicians said that now is not the time to point fingers." Totally false analogy.

 

- Story peppered demagoguery and inciting catch-phrases:

- "What they're not telling you"

- "What they don't want you to see these pictures" (a bit later @ 05:40)

- "What they don't want you to know"

 

- Makes hay of the fact that Transcocean got an award for safety. 60 Minutes reported that the Deepwater Horizon went seven years without an accident -- almost unheard-of in the industry. Whatever came later, didn't they earn that award? The 60 Minutes story seemed to put the blame more on BP than Transocean anyway, and personally I don't care which it was but I'm pretty damned sure Anderson Cooper can't tell me what the facts are.

 

- Douglas Brinkley, presidential historian (wtf?) from Rice University came on as guest and ripped right into BP, accusing them of holding a publicity stunt, complimenting the host for doing the same, STATING FACTUALLY that 95% of the oil is still gushing in to the gulf

- BP has "Taken a snide attitude"

- "It truly has come to the point where BP has to be held accountable"

- This "board of bumblers" which "has done nothing to educate the public"

- "people are getting angry"

- "arrogance" (Cooper)

- "absurd", "Catch-22", "Joseph Heller" (Brinkley)

- "Somebody has got to do something to reign in BP"

 

- No balancing guest, as is commonly done on Fox News Channel commentary programs (how about the scientist who says those plumes are wafer thin, or a scientist who says none of this stuff may ever come ashore? How about someone to point out that not one single underwater fishing or farming area has been hit by contamination yet?)

 

Glenn Beck hardly operates in a vacuum, that's for sure. Wow. But even worse, this piece positively SCREAMS ANTI-SCIENCE. So where is the outrage from the vaunted left that touts itself as standing on evidence and reason?

[bascule]

I don't have right now to watch or respond to this clip, but...

 

- Furthers unsubstantiated stories of "huge plumes under the surface"

(ABC has interviewed the scientist who found those plumes who says that they may be extremely insubstantial)

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37171468/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times

 

NEW YORK - Scientists are finding enormous oil plumes in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, including one as large as 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick. [...]

 

“There’s a shocking amount of oil in the deep water, relative to what you see in the surface water,” said Samantha Joye, a researcher at the University of Georgia who is involved in one of the first scientific missions to gather details about what is happening in the gulf. “There’s a tremendous amount of oil in multiple layers, three or four or five layers deep in the water column.”

[Pangloss]

Right, and the piece I mentioned on the ABC News piece last night had the same guy says that they're probably only "filament thing" and expressed surprise that they're being taken out of context by demagogues like Anderson Cooper. This story I found does a pretty good job filling in some of the blanks here:

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/05/gulf-oil-spill-noaa-skeptical-of-oil-plume-reports.html

 

I NEVER said that these “plumes” could cause a dead zone! It’s really important that you correct that! Consider:

 

a. We don’t even know if there is any oil in the plumes so the oxygen signal we’re seeing could be due to something else that is going on near the well and, if so, it could disappear overnight (we just don’t know)

 

b. The oxygen levels we saw are lower than “normal” but are no where near the danger zone! For the most part, they are not even as low as the layer above them that we call the “oxygen minimum zone.” This is a totally natural layer caused by normal oceanographic process and it is found essentially everywhere in the world with very few exceptions. The oxygen levels in these “plumes” are not as low as they are in this natural layer that is found at this site, between about 150 and 400m.

 

c. Even if the levels were dangerously low (which they are not), this plume does not have the potential to create a dead zone because it cannot be brought to the surface. That water is cold and heavy; it would take far more energy than is available to bring it to the surface anywhere in the Gulf, any time soon.

 

3) Yes, we’re concerned about low oxygen and yes these numbers are lower than normal but we don’t see signs of anything suffocating for lack of oxygen down there. It’s something to consider but it is very far down on the list of concerns.

 

NOAA has expressed skepticism over the plume reports, calling them premature and inconclusive:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/05/gulf-oil-spill-noaa-skeptical-of-oil-plume-reports.html

[bascule]

Any factual inaccuracies or hyperbole in Anderson Cooper's reporting aside, and I apologize as I haven't seen the clip yet, can you connect the dots for me as to how this makes him "The Progressive Glenn Beck"?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Okay, so I had a chance to watch the segment, and yeah, this isn't great reporting. But I'm kind of confused that you're comparing him to Glenn Beck.

 

BP is "spinning" it, or at least they're spinning it in the most pathetic and miserable way possible given the recent spat of containment failures. Robot submarine! Containment dome! Hot tap! Top hat! Junk shot! None of it is working.

 

That said, I don't know how else you'd expect BP to "spin" the oil suctioning success. It's their first victory amidst a long string of failures, so of course they're going to try to generate publicity about it.

 

Glenn Beck this is not, and I don't really see this as being any worse than your typical Neil Cavuto or Shepard Smith "reporting". Their programs are both highly spin-laced, although at least in the case of Shepard Smith he's actually done some reporting and interviews that I actually respect. I can't say the same of Cavuto.

[Pangloss]

It's like Glenn Beck in the sense that he's exaggerating for effect, and not just reporting the news.

 

Let me ask it this way: If the only difference between Anderson Cooper and Glenn Beck is degree, then haven't we said something really significant about the state of modern reporting? And isn't that the real problem here?

 

Either we stand and act on the facts, or we don't. We can't pretend that we're acting on the facts when what we're really acting on is drama and human emotion, because if we do that then we run the risk of making the wrong decision for the wrong reason.

 

Don't we all share some of the responsibility for the rise of religious conservatives?

[bascule]

If the only difference between Anderson Cooper and Glenn Beck is degree

 

It's more like approach. For example, Anderson Cooper doesn't draw elaborate chalkboard diagrams showing how BP is connected to the Nazi Socialist Commie Fascist Empire.

[Pangloss]

Well I appreciate you acknowledging my point, but I'm not sure that's all that much better. Part of Cooper's danger is his charm and his appeal to legitimacy. His viewers think he knows what he's talking about because of his 'experience' challenging the government over Katrina (as if). That matters to his audience in much the same way (and with much the same logic) that Beck's viewers need to be assured that aliens aren't about to abduct them.

 

My point is just that Beck doesn't operate in a vacuum. I think he's a particularly large fly on a very wide and deep pile of manure.

[ParanoiA]

I think he's a particularly large fly on a very wide and deep pile of manure.

 

Your best line, yet. Wish I'd said it.

[The Bear's Key]

Bascule asked recently why I haven't posted more examples of liberal commentators doing what Glenn Beck does. The answer isn't because they aren't doing it, it's because I'm not obsessed with finding such examples. But I did happen to catch a few minutes of AC360 tonight while puttering around the house, and I was rather shocked at what I saw.

 

Anderson Cooper 360 is touted as "CNN's premiere nightly news program", not commentary! (you can see this on the page immediately below the video linked below) (Does Fox News do this too, now -- calling their commentary/entertainment programs "news"? Yeesh!)

........

Glenn Beck hardly operates in a vacuum, that's for sure. Wow. But even worse, this piece positively SCREAMS ANTI-SCIENCE. So where is the outrage from the vaunted left that touts itself as standing on evidence and reason?

Pangloss, no offense, but you really suck at making comparisons...really awful. Well, political ones at least.

 

Glenn Beck and Fox Tabloids make distortions primarily to benefit one ideology while attempting to discredit that same ideology's opposition.

 

Where news in general just lies and distorts to feed their ratings and pockets, without being hellbent on elevating or destroying any party.

 

 

Here's a clue to the way many people view TV news in general...

 

It's not that I haven't watched TV news. It's that every time I watch some, I find it extremely disgusting. I know I can't trust them, and they feign interest in, and the importance of, what they are covering... bleh. Never found one with sustenance. I get my news online, and mostly it's limited to science news unless something political catches my interest.

 

 

Where the Fox Tabloids audience might view their doses of fake "news" with adulation, reverence, love, etc.

 

But really, we do know a lot of the news is bullshit. We just don't subscribe to the manufactured idea that news mostly caters to a single ideology -- except Fox does apparently.

 

The only good point you have -- and it's a great one -- is that CNN piece shouldn't be labelled "news". But we can say that about lots of stupid "news" bits on prime time news itself on most any channel/station.

 

Yet that brings up another important point.

 

FOX News, MSNBC.

 

See the difference? One's channel is labeled "news", so any opinion piece get the "news" label automatically. MSNBC hasn't behaved like that.

 

I had made an error in faulting MSNBC's political segments being on a news channel, but now I withdraw such comments in light of MSNBC not having the "news" label so visibly everywhere (unlike Fox). MSNBC has taken to being the FOX antidote on certain time slots, but at least MSNBC hasn't labeled their antidote pieces as "news".

[Pangloss]

Well that's your opinion about Fox News, and more power to you, but that doesn't mean my comparison is invalid. I think you just see it as invalid because you don't like what it showed.

 

That's the funny thing about bias -- people tend not to recognize it in themselves.

[bascule]

Well that's your opinion about Fox News, and more power to you, but that doesn't mean my comparison is invalid. I think you just see it as invalid because you don't like what it showed.

 

It really is an invalid comparison, Pangloss. It'd be no different than comparing Cavuto to Beck. Sure, Cavuto isn't that great of a journalist, but Cavuto isn't actively making people think the government is expanding out of control and being hijacked by communist Nazi Socialists who are hell bent on taking away our liberties while at the same time trashing the economy. By the way, buy gold!

 

No, Cavuto is just a medicore journalist.

 

If you really think this is a valid comparison, I'd suggest you haven't watched enough of Beck's program to form a proper opinion about the man.

[D H]

It really is an invalid comparison, Pangloss. It'd be no different than comparing Cavuto to Beck.

For once I agree with you, bascule. That is a much more apt comparison. Those are two sad clowns.

 

 

A much more apt comparison is Cooper to Hannity.

[Pangloss]

How is Sean Hannity any better than Glenn Beck?

 

I don't know, if you guys are actually watching Fox News then maybe you know something I don't. I just haven't heard anything actually stated that's different.

[bascule]

How is Sean Hannity any better than Glenn Beck?

 

Let me say this, both O'Reilly and Hannity are better than Glenn Beck. The reason is because they do actually, despite it all, try to be reasonable people. Glenn Beck does not.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Here's those crazy patchouli smelling hemp-wearing granola eating flower power hippie liberal zealots at CNN in action:

 

Edited May 21, 2010 by bascule
Consecutive posts merged.

[jryan]

Here is the actual article about Miss America

 

It was actually a puff piece about the view of women in the West and Islam and a pointless jab at some "neo-conservative" blog (not cited).

 

I think you should have actually read that article before presenting it as evidence.

[Pangloss]

Let me say this, both O'Reilly and Hannity are better than Glenn Beck. The reason is because they do actually, despite it all, try to be reasonable people. Glenn Beck does not.

 

Bascule, I watched an episode of Glenn Beck a couple of night ago, and I was somewhat chagrined to discover that he was a lot worse than I remembered. I had heard him a number of times (mainly on the radio, I believe), but it's been a few years and I don't recall him being nearly so paranoid, delusional and conspiracy-oriented.

 

With the qualifications of Hannity and O'Reilly above (being "better") I think I understand your position now, and I think you're right. Anderson Cooper maybe somewhere between Hannity and O'Reilly, perhaps, but he's not like Beck at all.

[bascule]

Bascule, I watched an episode of Glenn Beck a couple of night ago, and I was somewhat chagrined to discover that he was a lot worse than I remembered. I had heard him a number of times (mainly on the radio, I believe), but it's been a few years and I don't recall him being nearly so paranoid, delusional and conspiracy-oriented.

 

Well cool, glad you understand where I'm coming from. When you're talking about what's wrong with Glenn Beck though, don't forget complete asshole

 

BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy? Daddy? Daddy, did you plug the hole yet? Daddy?

 

PAT GRAY (co-host): (imitating Obama) No I didn't, honey.

 

BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy, I know you're better than [unintelligible]

 

GRAY: (imitating Obama) Mm-hmm, big country.

 

BECK: (imitating Malia) And I was wondering if you've plugged that hole yet.

 

GRAY: (imitating Obama) Honey, not yet.

 

BECK: (imitating Malia) Why not, daddy? But daddy--

 

GRAY: (imitating Obama) Not time yet, honey. Hasn't done enough damage.

 

BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy?

 

GRAY: (imitating Obama) Not enough damage yet, honey.

 

BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy?

 

GRAY: (imitating Obama) Yeah?

 

BECK: (imitating Malia) Why do you hate black people so much?

 

GRAY: (imitating Obama) I'm part white, honey.

 

BECK: (imitating Malia) What?

 

GRAY: (imitating Obama) What?

 

BECK: (imitating Malia) What'd you say?

 

GRAY: (imitating Obama) Excuse me?

 

BECK: (laughing) This is such a ridiculous -- this is such a ridiculous thing that his daughter-- (imitating Malia) Daddy?

 

GRAY: It's so stupid.

 

BECK: How old is his daughter? Like, thirteen?

 

GRAY: Well, one of them's, I think, thirteen, one's eleven, or something.

 

BECK: "Did you plug the hole yet, daddy?" Is that's their -- that's the level of their education, that they're coming to -- they're coming to daddy and saying 'Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?' " Plug the hole!

 

GRAY: (imitating Obama) Yes, I was doing some deep-sea diving yesterday, and--

 

BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy?

 

GRAY: (imitating Obama) Yeah, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, I was doing--

 

BECK: (imitating Malia) Why--

 

GRAY: (imitating Obama) Yeah, honey, I'm--

 

BECK (imitating Malia) Why, why, why, why, do you still let the polar bears die? Daddy, why do you still let Sarah Palin destroy the environment? Why are -- Daddy, why don't you just put her in some sort of a camp?

 

(it goes on like that)

[Pangloss]

On the other hand you've put me on to Bill O'Reilly again (hey, with Lost off the air I gotta watch SOMETHING), and I'm finding all sorts of interesting material for new threads.

[bascule]

If you're really looking for a liberal equivalent to Glenn Beck, Alex Jones is probably your best bet:

 

le89JY3Angg

 

He's not really a liberal... in fact, he's closer to a paleoconservative, but most of his followers are liberal anarchists of the sort who supported Ron Paul.

Edited May 30, 2010 by bascule

[pink_trike]

Television "News" isn't "reporting"...I thought everyone knew that these days. It's a grab for mind-share and revenue, using whatever marketing strategy works.

[bascule]

- Furthers unsubstantiated stories of "huge plumes under the surface"

(ABC has interviewed the scientist who found those plumes who says that they may be extremely insubstantial)

 

[...]

 

this piece positively SCREAMS ANTI-SCIENCE

 

NewScientist just ran a story of how the overwhelming majority of oil leaked from the spill takes the form of huge plumes under the surface.

 

It does acknowledge the previously cited statements from NOAA that the exact extent of these subsurface plumes in relation to the Deepwater Horizon spill is presently unknown.