Fox to Beck: Maybe You Should Cut Back On the Gold a Little?

"Fox exec Joel Cheatwood said "Goldline sent back word that Beck was NOT a paid spokesman" Of COURSE he did! The line I took is right from the article; it seems that they changed the wording around to avoid legal complications!

Of course he did? Then you believe, and are implying that both Goldline and Joel Cheatwood are lying. . .where are your facts?
Imho, through your implications, you are being every bit as disingenuous and complicit in the dissemination of mis-information as a typical biased msm hack.

The key words here is SPONSORED BY. . . Sponsoring a show does not necessitate one as being a "paid" representative, although that is how the revenue is raised that pays operational expenses.
Also that the articles from Politico, as well as Media Matters,(both which have their partisan political axes to grind) are the ones heralding the "ethics" of shilling (advertising) for special interests is and of itself laughable.
This continual shouting fire to divert attention from an issue to where the focus really should be is the usual m o of the leftist msm such as CBS, Media Matters, Politico et al.
Question: ->- have you even given it any 'real' thought just why gold has gone up? I'll give you a hint; it sure as blazes isn't because Beck and others are "shilling" for it. . .

No, the keyword here is "Paid Spokesperson", which is the word that would have gotten Beck and Fox into legal issues. That's the word they changed to avoid those issues, which is what my original comment was about. If you don't like the sources because of your own personal biases, that's fine, but I've given you 3-4 sources that prove that (which is what you asked for) and you've given me none. So do I believe, based on the evidence at hand, that Beck was labeled as a paid spokesperson on the gold website and that the wording was changed to avoid legal problems? Yes. Is that what this article is about? Yes. Is that what MY comment was about? Yes. Have you been able to prove any of it wrong? No. Deflection onto other subjects notwithstanding, I'd appreciate it if you'd take the snotty tone down a notch or two considering you've provided no reason for me to believe my original assertion was false.

This NY Times Source implies that not even Fox itself is denying what happened:

"Fox News stressed that it was not aware that Mr. Beck was listed on the Internet as a paid spokesman. But he definitely was, until very recently. On cached editions of the Goldline Web site over the last week to 10 days, a photograph of Mr. Beck was accompanied by an asterisk which led to a line at the bottom of the site that read: “paid spokesman.”

(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14beck.html)

The real issue here is to discredit Beck, using any means that can justify that end. . . and it really does not matter just how it is 'defined' that somehow he and others on Fox is on the "take" and or have some "special" interest, because the issue here is that if you bring down the opposition, then somehow your own values are elevated.
And often times that strategy works, look at you, you've bought into it.

I haven't bought into anything. I said that words are very powerful, that's it. I made my case and you argued (poorly) against it. You asked for my facts and I gave them to you. You didn't like my sources so I gave you more. You apparently have no way to discredit what I said, so you keep deflecting to other things. I think we're pretty much done here!

I care less about persuading you, that would be pointless. That you've drawn your conclusion from your embedded partisan ideology is plain enough. . .
Notice though, that no matter which media source one turns too for information, what is so glaringly evident is that rather than report facts as they are, they all (Fox included) spend more time slamming the content and credibility (as if that makes their own pathetic biases any more credible) of their supposed "colleagues". . .
And the spin goes on!

It's Fox that's bitching at Beck, for doing commercials for Goldline, (not on his show) which is against Fox's policy. As stated in the article:

Then the network's legal department sent Beck a letter asking him just what he does for Goldline, exactly. Because technically, on-air talent at Fox is prohibited from "endorsing products or serving as a product spokesperson."

"I am not saying he hasnt mentioned it once or twice but to say he try's to sell it every day, or even every week is just bullshit DNC propaganda."

Right... whos the one not being honest with himself here? Beck is a fear propagating hate spewing lunatic. I dont see how you can possibly even try to claim otherwise. Please watch the video Ajil posted and see if you cant make the connection between his fear pandering and his connection to a company that buys and sells gold.

Still neither one of you took the challenge. Get back to me when you grow some hair on your chest.

I'll do it! My supervisor and I try to watch all the news shows at work, even the ones on Fox- I actually used to watch Glenn Beck when he was on CNN, he seemed a little less sensationalist back then. But I shouldn't have to debate EVERY point, only the ones I disagree with, right? Or should I take note of each point and tell you which ones I will be debating and which ones I agree with?

Totally Cool Delia. I really kinda thought about you as I wrote it. You are always up for a good discussion and I have never seen you back down. Let me know which show to watch. If I cant watch it that day I will DVR it and see it within a day of its airing. We then can take a day or 2 to get ready for the debate. You can come up with your facts to counter what he said and I will Do research on what he said also.

You can pick out where exactly and how exactly we will do this. Do you want to do it in a story or just in E-mails between us. I dont care either way. I will say that I can NOT do the actual debate on a WED or a Thursday. It can be a show on one of those days but I am usually out on the road and away from a computer on those days so the debate cant be on one of those days. That is really the only condition I must put on it but that shouldnt really have to much of an effect on the outcome.

I look forward to it but I am not afraid to admit that I am slightly nervous about debating you on this. You usually have yopur shit together and that is obvious by your quick action on my challenge.

Thanks Delia, your a top notch chick...............Hope that doesnt sound sexist.

You better get ready and grow some hair on your chest Ihatethemall, lol.

Sorry Delia, I was so excited by your challenge I didnt read the last couple lines.

I guess you should take note of each point and say what you agree with and what you dont to be fair to not only me but Glenn Beck himself. Otherwise it would look like he said nothing you agreed with. Those points that you agree with will be ran over very quickly and those you disagree with will be discussed and facts that prove him wrong will be shown. I am REALLY looking forward to this.

I think to be fair we should pick a date at random.....maybe one week in advance of the airing of the show so there is no way either of us could know what that shows content will be.

Also how much prep time do you want after the show airs? Maybe pick a show either at the beginning of the week then take all week to prepare or the end of the week then take all weekend to prepare or just got at it right after the show airs. Please remember I can not do the actual debate on a WED or THURS. The show can air on ANY day, I just dont usually have computer access on WED and THURS.

Thanks Delia.

I would like to join in. I dont know my ability to stay committed to this for this winter break. If your picking an episode a week ahead, well that would land you somehwere near Christmas, which I am actually celebrating, with my Atheist-Muslim-Christian-mix of a family :P then if your taking a week to gather your info, then that will take us up near New Years. I can decide if all that is a good thing or not. I mean, at least I wont have school-work to look after, so it could be a neat little project for the break. Whether or not I am able to join in on the discussion, I do have one suggestion, Take an episode that has been posted on youtube, then post it here on Current's site, and have the discussion be your comments...

It is far too easy to witness any person of any magnitude could break down Glenn Beck's lunacy and fear-rampaging paranoia, I am more interested to see how someone could take a single episode of Glenn Beck's to be serious or credible. I sincerely would like to know of a single episode that has aired that has not been discredited or had the claims or views put out been analyzed for sketchiness.

Delia. I will be gone till Friday evening. Just so you dont think I am avoiding you. You have a good week and I will catch you then.

How about if i post sections of the show on current and you guys can argue each point on the thread.

wow, exciting stuff. this absolutly needs to be its own story.

hey guys check out the group "current debates" and let me know what you think.

Yeah, this should def fall into Current Debates. Slarabee had wanted to do something like this a while ago, we just never figured out exactly how to do it.

We should def do it as a post that way other people can chime in if they want to.

So, if you want about a week, how about next Tuesday's show? It gives us some time to chill and then, since you can't do wed or thursday, maybe Friday Morning I'll post a thread with the info from the show and what I agreed or disagreed with and we can start from there? Let me know if that sounds ok. Maybe you should pick the show date since you have certain times you can't do it? I think I'm pretty much free...

Great video!

great stuff