“the highest standards of…editorial integrity�

[MDM4AU 332]

Last week, Public Broadcasting Service’s Channel 13, which claims “the highest standards of…editorial integrity” as one of their trademarks, posted a “Media Briefing” blog entry that included the following statement:

“Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck’s book An Inconvenient Book "has hit the number one spot" on the New York Times Best Seller book list, claims the online publication Newsmax.com. But is it? However a check of yesterday’s New York Times Best Seller list shows that not only is the book not number 1, it is not among any of the top 16 listed.”

Why not just say it: you think Newsmax is lying. Or, better yet: you are elitist public television executives who think that conservatives have less intelligence than pond scum and therefore refuse to believe that a conservative book could ever hit the top of your precious little list.

Maybe public television spends so much money finding left-wing activists to hire that they forgot to buy internet access, or maybe this journalist with the “highest standards of editorial integrity” didn’t learn how to check facts, but I can assure you, we were most certainly number one on the NYT list.

If you’ve been unable to tear yourself away from Frontline to see it for yourself, here’s the link.

LINK

[Tiger Al 0]

Last week, Public Broadcasting Service’s Channel 13, which claims “the highest standards of…editorial integrity” as one of their trademarks, posted a “Media Briefing” blog entry that included the following statement:

“Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck’s book An Inconvenient Book "has hit the number one spot" on the New York Times Best Seller book list, claims the online publication Newsmax.com. But is it? However a check of yesterday’s New York Times Best Seller list shows that not only is the book not number 1, it is not among any of the top 16 listed.”

Why not just say it: you think Newsmax is lying. Or, better yet: you are elitist public television executives who think that conservatives have less intelligence than pond scum and therefore refuse to believe that a conservative book could ever hit the top of your precious little list.

Maybe public television spends so much money finding left-wing activists to hire that they forgot to buy internet access, or maybe this journalist with the “highest standards of editorial integrity” didn’t learn how to check facts, but I can assure you, we were most certainly number one on the NYT list.

If you’ve been unable to tear yourself away from Frontline to see it for yourself, here’s the link.

LINK

It's pretty sad that beck has to manufacture this manure to sell a few more books. Evidently it was beck who counted on conservatives having less intelligence than pond scum and therefore take him at face value and become "outraged" right along with him.

BTW, his stay at the top was very short-lived; It has dropped every week.

[MDM4AU 332]

What you have failed to observe in your zeal to slam Beck is that when the editorial writer took a swipe at Beck, it was #1 that week. (See the link provided in my post for the Best sellers the week of the editiorial.)

Yes, in three weeks it dropped from 1st to 4th. WHOOOPTADEE FREAKIN' DOOO! I'm sure you are all fuzzy inside. There wasn't a claim that it is #1 now. The claim is that the dolt took a swipe without knowing the facts (or simply ignoring them). Some editorial integrity, huh?

I have the feeling that the only thing that you know about Beck is what your blog buddies have told you. That's fine. Your prerogative.

[Tiger Al 0]

What you have failed to observe in your zeal to slam Beck is that when the editorial writer took a swipe at Beck, it was #1 that week. (See the link provided in my post for the Best sellers the week of the editiorial.)

Yes, in three weeks it dropped from 1st to 4th. WHOOOPTADEE FREAKIN' DOOO! I'm sure you are all fuzzy inside. There wasn't a claim that it is #1 now. The claim is that the dolt took a swipe without knowing the facts (or simply ignoring them). Some editorial integrity, huh?

I have the feeling that the only thing that you know about Beck is what your blog buddies have told you. That's fine. Your prerogative.

MDM, either beck is an idiot or he believes you are. Look at the chronology. Dr. Baker's (the dolt's) article was published on Monday, December 3, 2007. The NYT's best -seller list comes out every Sunday. That would be December 2 in this case. If you look at the 12/2/2007 NYT best-seller list you will see that the dolt is correct. The book in question doesn't hit #1 until the week of 12/3-12/8 and wouldn't be listed on the NYT's list until...12/9. The list becky refers us to is the one for the following week or 12/09/2007. The best-seller list isn't a compilation of predictions of who might sell the most books in the next week, but, who has sold the most for the prior week.

[MDM4AU 332]

The most recent list is dated 12/23/2007 showing Beck 4th and being on the list for 3 weeks. LINK The 12/9 list would have been for the week this guy is making his claim...am I wrong? If the 12/23 list is available on the Monday before it actually comes out, the 12/9 list would have been available on Monday 12/3. I don't make or control the lists, just stating what I see.

[mowegl 4]

pwned.

[Tiger Al 0]

The most recent list is dated 12/23/2007 showing Beck 4th and being on the list for 3 weeks. LINK The 12/9 list would have been for the week this guy is making his claim...am I wrong? If the 12/23 list is available on the Monday before it actually comes out, the 12/9 list would have been available on Monday 12/3. I don't make or control the lists, just stating what I see.

Well, the NewsMax article he's commenting on was from 11/29. So, on 11/29 NewsMax is proclaiming that "Glenn Beck Hits No. 1 on New York Times List." On 12/3, the dolt writes, "However a check of yesterday’s (12/2/2007) New York Times Best Seller list shows that not only is the book not number 1, it is not among any of the top 16 listed." Is he wrong?

[Tiger Al 0]

pwned.

Does anybody know what the hell this means?

[TexasTiger 12,965]

pwned.

Does anybody know what the hell this means?

It's geek-speak for you've been owned. Mowegl just doesn't know when it applies.

[MDM4AU 332]

The most recent list is dated 12/23/2007 showing Beck 4th and being on the list for 3 weeks. LINK The 12/9 list would have been for the week this guy is making his claim...am I wrong? If the 12/23 list is available on the Monday before it actually comes out, the 12/9 list would have been available on Monday 12/3. I don't make or control the lists, just stating what I see.

Well, the NewsMax article he's commenting on was from 11/29. So, on 11/29 NewsMax is proclaiming that "Glenn Beck Hits No. 1 on New York Times List." On 12/3, the dolt writes, "However a check of yesterday’s (12/2/2007) New York Times Best Seller list shows that not only is the book not number 1, it is not among any of the top 16 listed." Is he wrong?

The problem here is the article actually states:

Beck’s “An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World’s Biggest Problems” (Simon & Schuster) will appear the Times’ list of Hardcover Nonfiction bestsellers that will appear on December 9.

FACTS FOUND AT THIS LINK

So no, it wasn't on that list. But if he had an ounce of honesty and "integrity," he wouldn't have left that out.

Just sayin'.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

The most recent list is dated 12/23/2007 showing Beck 4th and being on the list for 3 weeks. LINK The 12/9 list would have been for the week this guy is making his claim...am I wrong? If the 12/23 list is available on the Monday before it actually comes out, the 12/9 list would have been available on Monday 12/3. I don't make or control the lists, just stating what I see.

Well, the NewsMax article he's commenting on was from 11/29. So, on 11/29 NewsMax is proclaiming that "Glenn Beck Hits No. 1 on New York Times List." On 12/3, the dolt writes, "However a check of yesterday’s (12/2/2007) New York Times Best Seller list shows that not only is the book not number 1, it is not among any of the top 16 listed." Is he wrong?

The problem here is the article actually states:

Beck’s “An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World’s Biggest Problems” (Simon & Schuster) will appear the Times’ list of Hardcover Nonfiction bestsellers that will appear on December 9.

FACTS FOUND AT THIS LINK

So no, it wasn't on that list. But if he had an ounce of honesty and "integrity," he wouldn't have left that out.

Just sayin'.

Before you are so quick to accuse someone of having not an "ounce of honesty and integrity" you should engage in some better critical thinking. You link to a website. You act as if such things are forever fixed in time and can't be changed. You link to the exact same website that the Channel 13 writer, Baker, links to. That site now says:

Beck’s “An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World’s Biggest Problems” (Simon & Schuster) will appear the Times’ list of Hardcover Nonfiction bestsellers that will appear on December 9

"Will appear [sic] the Times list...that will appear on..." Looks like a poor edit job that likely happened after the error was pointed out by the Channel 13 article. My best guess is that it was edited twice, with the date being added the second time-- thus the two consecutive "will appears".

You'll note that the quote cited in the Channel 13 article no longer exists in the NewsMax article: "has hit the number one spot". Instead we have "will appear...will appear". If Dr. Baker was playing as fast and loose with the facts as you assert, why would he have actually linked to the site so any reader could so easily catch him doing so? At least make them work for it, as Newsmax usually does.

The fact is, it is unlikely that we will ever know precisely what the original November 29th NewsMax article said. But what I deduced above is the most logical scenario. Asserting that Dr. Baker doesn't have an ounce of "honesty and integrity" based on these "facts" is grossly unfair.

[MDM4AU 332]

Before you are so quick to accuse someone of having not an "ounce of honesty and integrity" you should engage in some better critical thinking. You link to a website. You act as if such things are forever fixed in time and can't be changed. You link to the exact same website that the Channel 13 writer, Baker, links to. That site now says:

Beck’s “An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World’s Biggest Problems” (Simon & Schuster) will appear the Times’ list of Hardcover Nonfiction bestsellers that will appear on December 9

"Will appear [sic] the Times list...that will appear on..." Looks like a poor edit job that likely happened after the error was pointed out by the Channel 13 article. My best guess is that it was edited twice, with the date being added the second time-- thus the two consecutive "will appears".

You'll note that the quote cited in the Channel 13 article no longer exists in the NewsMax article: "has hit the number one spot". Instead we have "will appear...will appear". If Dr. Baker was playing as fast and loose with the facts as you assert, why would he have actually linked to the site so any reader could so easily catch him doing so? At least make them work for it, as Newsmax usually does.

The fact is, it is unlikely that we will ever know precisely what the original November 29th NewsMax article said. But what I deduced above is the most logical scenario. Asserting that Dr. Baker doesn't have an ounce of "honesty and integrity" based on these "facts" is grossly unfair.

Actually, the title says, "Glenn Beck Hits No. 1 on New York Times List." While you defend Dr. Baker (because you would have to boil yourself if you defended NewsMax or something to do with Beck) could it be he was wrong on the quote? He sure is quick and happy to point out to the blogosphere that the conservatives are wrong. Maybe Dr. Baker is hoping the Tiger Al's of the world are dumber than pond scum and will run with it - without question.

Here's some critical thinking for ya, bucko...could it be a typo rather than an edit as you say:

Beck’s “An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World’s Biggest Problems” (Simon & Schuster) will appear on the Times’ list of Hardcover Nonfiction bestsellers that will appear on December 9.

But wait...that won't work for you since it favors the evil NewsMax.

And my perception of Dr. Baker is no more grossly unfair than this:

It's pretty sad that beck has to manufacture this manure to sell a few more books. Evidently it was beck who counted on conservatives having less intelligence than pond scum and therefore take him at face value and become "outraged" right along with him.

But, then again...that's coming from your buddy, Tiger Al, so you probably have no problem with it.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

Before you are so quick to accuse someone of having not an "ounce of honesty and integrity" you should engage in some better critical thinking. You link to a website. You act as if such things are forever fixed in time and can't be changed. You link to the exact same website that the Channel 13 writer, Baker, links to. That site now says:

Beck’s “An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World’s Biggest Problems” (Simon & Schuster) will appear the Times’ list of Hardcover Nonfiction bestsellers that will appear on December 9

"Will appear [sic] the Times list...that will appear on..." Looks like a poor edit job that likely happened after the error was pointed out by the Channel 13 article. My best guess is that it was edited twice, with the date being added the second time-- thus the two consecutive "will appears".

You'll note that the quote cited in the Channel 13 article no longer exists in the NewsMax article: "has hit the number one spot". Instead we have "will appear...will appear". If Dr. Baker was playing as fast and loose with the facts as you assert, why would he have actually linked to the site so any reader could so easily catch him doing so? At least make them work for it, as Newsmax usually does.

The fact is, it is unlikely that we will ever know precisely what the original November 29th NewsMax article said. But what I deduced above is the most logical scenario. Asserting that Dr. Baker doesn't have an ounce of "honesty and integrity" based on these "facts" is grossly unfair.

Actually, the title says, "Glenn Beck Hits No. 1 on New York Times List." While you defend Dr. Baker (because you would have to boil yourself if you defended NewsMax or something to do with Beck) could it be he was wrong on the quote? He sure is quick and happy to point out to the blogosphere that the conservatives are wrong. Maybe Dr. Baker is hoping the Tiger Al's of the world are dumber than pond scum and will run with it - without question.

Here's some critical thinking for ya, bucko...could it be a typo rather than an edit as you say:

Beck’s “An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World’s Biggest Problems” (Simon & Schuster) will appear on the Times’ list of Hardcover Nonfiction bestsellers that will appear on December 9.

But wait...that won't work for you since it favors the evil NewsMax.

And my perception of Dr. Baker is no more grossly unfair than this:

It's pretty sad that beck has to manufacture this manure to sell a few more books. Evidently it was beck who counted on conservatives having less intelligence than pond scum and therefore take him at face value and become "outraged" right along with him.

But, then again...that's coming from your buddy, Tiger Al, so you probably have no problem with it.

Could he have been wrong on his quote? Sure. But since he provided a link to the site, your theory suggests that he made a mistake, not that he lacks integrity and honesty. Is there ALSO a typo? Sure. Like I said, poor edit job.

I suspect the first edit looked like this:

Beck’s “An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World’s Biggest Problems” (Simon & Schuster) will appear the Times’ list of Hardcover Nonfiction bestsellers."

And then they decided to cover their tracks further, specified the date of the list and tacked on yet another "will appear":

...that will appear on December 9

It seems that a single edit, or better written original, would have looked more like this:

Beck’s “An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World’s Biggest Problems” (Simon & Schuster) will appear on the Times’ December 9th list of Hardcover Nonfiction bestsellers."

No reason to add two "will appears", even though it is an incredibly sloppy publication.

Such a meaningless thing to begin with, but you insisted on regurgitating your idol's little pissy rant. And you'll defend him in spite of any facts and logic presented to you. I'd say Al summed you and the other Beckites up pretty well, as evidenced by your posts.

[MDM4AU 332]

Typical Liberal blather. You two work well together. And judging by your comments, I stand behind the statement that you nor Al know a thing about Beck but what the Leftist Bloggers want you to. He's conservative so he has to be attacked!

Pathetic...

[TexasTiger 12,965]

Typical Liberal blather. You two work well together. And judging by your comments, I stand behind the statement that you nor Al know a thing about Beck but what the Leftist Bloggers want you to. He's conservative so he has to be attacked!

Pathetic...

Ignore the facts, pooh-pooh logic, attack a percieved librul's integrity and hide behind your standard right-wing paranoia-- enhanced in this case by your extreme man-crush on Beck. Tragically sad.

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?a...lite=glenn+beck

[MDM4AU 332]

OOOOOH! You got me there. 19 topics since January 2004. 6 in the this year alone! WOW! That's what...one every couple of month on average? In one of the other topics you show there, YOU BROUGHT UP BECK, not me.

No matter what I post or how true it is, you revert to the man love, idol worship, dig-de jour for me being a fan of Beck. Typical ignorant liberal lacking of any real substance.

I'll let you have the last word.

Merry Winter Holiday, Tex.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

No matter what I post or how true it is, you revert to the man love, idol worship, dig-de jour for me being a fan of Beck. Typical ignorant liberal lacking of any real substance.

You attack a man's integrity and then whine about a librul hit-job on Beck. I didn't initially say anything that could reasonably be seen as an attack on Beck on this thread:

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?s...st&p=455266

I simply pointed out how he, and you by regurgitating his whine and adding to it, were being unfair. I did that by originally presenting a logical analysis. A fair man would see that. You responded with an attack in the form that you now accuse me of-- faulting the messenger-- in this case one so obscure that you know less about him than I do about Beck-- and simply dismissing my argument because Beck is involved.

While you defend Dr. Baker (because you would have to boil yourself if you defended NewsMax or something to do with Beck) ... He sure is quick and happy to point out to the blogosphere that the conservatives are wrong. Maybe Dr. Baker is hoping the Tiger Al's of the world are dumber than pond scum and will run with it - without question.

There is no real rational justification for this type of blather:

Typical Liberal blather. You two work well together. And judging by your comments, I stand behind the statement that you nor Al know a thing about Beck but what the Leftist Bloggers want you to. He's conservative so he has to be attacked!

You rarely respond to a straightforward argument in a straight forward, rational manner. Whine and attack and claim conspiracy. Your standard MO.

Merry Christmas to you, too.

[channonc 466]

MDM- I don't understand what the deep fascination is for Beck. He is nothing more than a talking head, no different from any of the other talking heads (O'Reilly, Scarborough, etc. )

[MDM4AU 332]

MDM- I don't understand what the deep fascination is for Beck. He is nothing more than a talking head, no different from any of the other talking heads (O'Reilly, Scarborough, etc. )

I wouldn't say deep facination. Again, I have posted 19 topics over the last 48 months.

I enjoy his show. I agree with him, not on all things, but on many. And on some of those things it's not 100%. He and I have similar core values. Also, he doesn't toe the party line like some conservative talking heads.

I think he has great interviews, such as with Dennis Learhy, Ron Paul, D L Hughley, and Michael Buble just to name a few. I also like his books. Their entertaining.

I think the bigger question is why Tex and Al hate him so much or why Tex feels the need to make posts such as, "This from the man who thinks Glenn Beck is a God!" in a post that had nothing to do with Beck. It's like you said, he's just another talking head.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

MDM- I don't understand what the deep fascination is for Beck. He is nothing more than a talking head, no different from any of the other talking heads (O'Reilly, Scarborough, etc. )

I wouldn't say deep facination. Again, I have posted 19 topics over the last 48 months.

I enjoy his show. I agree with him, not on all things, but on many. And on some of those things it's not 100%. He and I have similar core values. Also, he doesn't toe the party line like some conservative talking heads.

I think he has great interviews, such as with Dennis Learhy, Ron Paul, D L Hughley, and Michael Buble just to name a few. I also like his books. Their entertaining.

I think the bigger question is why Tex and Al hate him so much or why Tex feels the need to make posts such as, "This from the man who thinks Glenn Beck is a God!" in a post that had nothing to do with Beck. It's like you said, he's just another talking head.

The depth of MDM's attraction to Beck is well illustrated in this tread. A guy he probably has never heard of dedicates about 2 sentences to Beck in a lengthy blog entry and MDM get's his panties in such a wad that he says the guy is almost totally lacking in honesty and integrity. I try to engage him in a rational manner and all he can do is claim his idol is being persecuted because I hate him. Truly bizarre.

[MDM4AU 332]

MDM- I don't understand what the deep fascination is for Beck. He is nothing more than a talking head, no different from any of the other talking heads (O'Reilly, Scarborough, etc. )

I wouldn't say deep facination. Again, I have posted 19 topics over the last 48 months.

I enjoy his show. I agree with him, not on all things, but on many. And on some of those things it's not 100%. He and I have similar core values. Also, he doesn't toe the party line like some conservative talking heads.

I think he has great interviews, such as with Dennis Learhy, Ron Paul, D L Hughley, and Michael Buble just to name a few. I also like his books. Their entertaining.

I think the bigger question is why Tex and Al hate him so much or why Tex feels the need to make posts such as, "This from the man who thinks Glenn Beck is a God!" in a post that had nothing to do with Beck. It's like you said, he's just another talking head.

The depth of MDM's attraction to Beck is well illustrated in this tread. A guy he probably has never heard of dedicates about 2 sentences to Beck in a lengthy blog entry and MDM get's his panties in such a wad that he says the guy is almost totally lacking in honesty and integrity. I try to engage him in a rational manner and all he can do is claim his idol is being persecuted because I hate him. Truly bizarre.

You truly have issues, Tex. It's almost frightening.

Happy Winter Holiday to you and your family.

[Tiger Al 0]

Typical Liberal blather. You two work well together. And judging by your comments, I stand behind the statement that you nor Al know a thing about Beck but what the Leftist Bloggers want you to. He's conservative so he has to be attacked!

Pathetic...

You're projecting. Look at your original post. Beck launches a vitriolic attack against Baker because he had the temerity to accurately assess the state of Becky's book and directly contradict NewsMax.

I know enough about Becky to know that he soooo wants to be in the same league as Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity and Coulter that he feels the need to manufacture controversy, no matter how insignificant it is. It also appears that NewsMax is doing its level-best to propel Becky's book up the best-seller list by buying up as many books as it can and then giving them away with a NewsMax magazine purchase. Evidently, the book isn't that good because, despite the help of NewsMax, and I'm sure others, it has fallen every week since it was published.

This seems to me to be an attempt to rally the troops around poor Becky because the behemoth that is Channel 13 has contradicted NewsMax's puffery.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

MDM- I don't understand what the deep fascination is for Beck. He is nothing more than a talking head, no different from any of the other talking heads (O'Reilly, Scarborough, etc. )

I wouldn't say deep facination. Again, I have posted 19 topics over the last 48 months.

I enjoy his show. I agree with him, not on all things, but on many. And on some of those things it's not 100%. He and I have similar core values. Also, he doesn't toe the party line like some conservative talking heads.

I think he has great interviews, such as with Dennis Learhy, Ron Paul, D L Hughley, and Michael Buble just to name a few. I also like his books. Their entertaining.

I think the bigger question is why Tex and Al hate him so much or why Tex feels the need to make posts such as, "This from the man who thinks Glenn Beck is a God!" in a post that had nothing to do with Beck. It's like you said, he's just another talking head.

The depth of MDM's attraction to Beck is well illustrated in this tread. A guy he probably has never heard of dedicates about 2 sentences to Beck in a lengthy blog entry and MDM get's his panties in such a wad that he says the guy is almost totally lacking in honesty and integrity. I try to engage him in a rational manner and all he can do is claim his idol is being persecuted because I hate him. Truly bizarre.

You truly have issues, Tex. It's almost frightening.

Happy Winter Holiday to you and your family.

Another common tactic you employ. Demonstrate your own "issues" and then simply accuse others of having "issues" without logical explanation...even after promising the last word.

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

[Tiger Al 0]

I think the bigger question is why Tex and Al hate him so much or why Tex feels the need to make posts such as, "This from the man who thinks Glenn Beck is a God!" in a post that had nothing to do with Beck. It's like you said, he's just another talking head.

I don't hate him, I just think he's a shallow moron. I'll give you an example from the blurb for his book:

Global warming is another issue that's ripe with lies and distortion. How many times have you heard that carbon dioxide is responsible for huge natural disasters that have killed millions of people? The truth is, it's actually the other way around: as CO2 has increased, deaths from extreme weather have decreased. Bet you'll never see that in an Al Gore slide show.

An Inconvenient Book contains hundreds of these same "why have I never heard that before?" types of facts that will leave you wondering how political correctness, special interests, and outright stupidity have gotten us so far away from the commonsense solutions this country was built on.

There you go. Simple as that. "Lies and distortion" because as CO2 has increased, deaths have decreased and that explains it all. Nevermind advances in the Emergency Management System, the establishment of evacuation routes or a handy little invention called.......RADAR!

No...there's no other explanation for a decrease in deaths in Becky's world except "lies and distortion."

There's a good reason Jon Stewart is quoted as saying, "Finally! A guy who says what people who aren't thinking are thinking."