Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Glen Beck Rally
PPR    8/30/2010 8:25:39 AM
Glenn Beck says he didn't know his recent rally at the Lincoln Memorial was on the anniversary of the "I have a dream" rally. I suspect it was a deliberate choice. He certainly didn't shy from references to MLK and even had MLK's niece as a speaker. What was his point? At last year's Tea Party rally, the left-wing press low-balled the crowd size by nearly an order of magnitude in order to minimize its impact. In choosing the site and time of the "I have a dream" speech, Beck set the stage for comparison, deliberately. History states that 200,000 people attended the MLK speech. This becomes the bar against which the 8/28 Beck speech is now measured. If one compares pictures side-by-side, the 8/28 speech is clearly larger. To begin with, the landscape has changed. Temporary building constructed during WW I frame the Reflecting Pool during the MLK speech, limiting the crowd area. Those buildings stretched the length of the pool. The WW II memorial has also been added, which stretched the width of the pool. So on a simple comparison, you're losing the space of the Memorial but gaining a lot of space that the temporary buildings filled. The 8/28 crowd is at least double the size of the MLK, clearly. With that obvious image in mind, one can then look at the CBS news estimate of 87,000 and notice the disconnect. How can you have a crowd with half the people but filling more than twice the area? Beck did this to box-in the left-wing media. They must either admit a crowd size of 400,000+ or downgrade the historic MLK speech.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Aussiegunneragain       8/30/2010 8:47:09 AM


Beck did this to box-in the left-wing media. They must either admit a crowd size of 400,000+ or downgrade the historic MLK speech.
... or only take close ups of Beck and the crowd so that there is no sense of numbers, or just not report the story at all. Easy.

 
Quote    Reply

CJH       9/4/2010 8:59:35 AM
I just heard Glenn Beck on a Fox News Sunday podcast this week.
 
This guy has a pretty good take on where things are going.
 
I had been hearing his name a lot but I don't get cable so I haven't heard him.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       9/4/2010 9:05:41 AM
The raising of the memory of Martin Luther King is probably appropriate in a sense. As I understand it, King borrowed from Mohandas Ghandi's use of civil disobedience. And of course, Ghandi seems to have implemented strategies he synthesized together from various sources but mainly from the ideas of Count Tolstoy with whom Ghandi had apparently corresponded.
 
There may be a need to dust off this form of bringing about change soon.
 
Quote    Reply

timon_phocas       9/4/2010 8:32:32 PM
Back in the 1950's through 1970's a handful of executives controlled the vast majority of US media. They livid and worked within a couple square miles of each other. They got up, read the New York Times, and then decided what the country would read, see and hear for the rest of the day.    
 
I remember back in the 1960's that there was still a minor uproar, a sense of affront in the mainstream news organizations, that William F. Buckley's National Review even existed. It was equated with publications from the likes of The John Birch Society.
 
The Kennedy administration saw the nascent rise of conservative radio programs and promulgated the "fairness doctrine" specifically to eliminate them. This worked to muzzle talk radio for twenty years until it was overturned in the courts. I heard nary a peep of protest from ABC, CBS or NBC.
 
When cable began proliferating, Christian television networks began reaching significant market shares. There were howls of outrage from mainstream media. They deeply resented losing their monopoly. 
 
There are new howls of each time somebody carves out another chunk of their once inviolable monopoly. It's part ideological, because they cannot stand any explanatory narrative than their own. It's also part financial. Somebody is taking their advertising dollars. 
 
 
It doesn't matter whether it's Fox News, Sarah Palin or Glen Beck. Outsiders are taking away their control of the narrative, the historical context of news. They can only howl their outrage, they are losing control, and they know it. .  
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       9/5/2010 9:08:21 PM
A kind of narcissism probably.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics