People and Politics


Home Page > Blogs > News blogs > People and Politics > NY Times calls Glenn Beck feminine, compares him to Oprah Winfrey
People and Politics by Patrick Roberts

NY Times calls Glenn Beck feminine, compares him to Oprah Winfrey

Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 04:41 PM
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail
comment on article 25 Comments
 

RSS


Recent Posts

Archives

submit to reddit


I have heard Glenn Beck compared to many people, some flattering, some not so but never Oprah WInfrey.

However, the Sunday New York Times magazine says that Beck is secretly a Winfrey wannabe and that there is "something feminine about Beck — the soft features, the crying on the air, the reflexive vulnerability."

Glenny Beck effeminate, gay even, is that what The Times are hinting at?

Beck's staff love the comparison to Winfrey, as does Beck himself apparently.

They point to the fact that Beck has more female viewers than other right wing hosts and that they feel he understands them better than most men.

“Part of Oprah’s appeal is that people see her as a real person,” Joel Cheatwood, the Fox executive who initially brought Beck to CNN’s Headline News and then to Fox told The Times.

“She has struggled with her weight; she is open about it. Glenn is not a pretty boy. He comes off as a regular guy who has also been open about his struggles.It sets him apart from the standard, testosterone-addled rant artists of cable and talk radio."

Just when you thought you might have figured out the Glenn Beck role in American life, the hard nosed evangelist for the Tea Party movement, along comes this interpretation, that it is really all about his soft feminine side and how he wants to be Oprah.

The only comparison I see is that they both like to talk about themselves endlessly and America finds that fascinating enough to tune in in their millions.

And they both laugh all the way to the bank.


print this article Print
email this articleE-mail

25 comments

Next Page 1 of 2 pages
IrishAndProud | Oct 11, 2010, 12:06 AM EDT
The NYTimes is completely irrelevant, as a national force, anymore -- and what they say about anyone is moot. They're either spewing the same leftist rhetoric that has relegated them to the ignored fringe, or (rarely) they're belatedly acknowledging what everyone else already knows (the re-ascendancy of conservatism in the USA) and trying to minimize it, at that. They're dinosaur media, and going extinct, fast. Newsweek (another lib rag) just recently sold for ONE DOLLAR, for crying out loud. A kid with a lemonade stand in foreclosure could have bought them. These are the dire straights that the old media find themselves in nowadays, in this age of the internet where they simply can no longer exclusively control what people see and hear (a time not that long ago, really -- I remember it well). And the most poetically just part of it all? The common people themselves are doing them in, because after all, it is they who watch/buy/listen to the news, and provide any outlet with its financial backbone. Without the people, you're sunk. And the people are NOT on the side of the leftist media, and never really were. It's just that now they have other avenues -- and they're taking them in droves.

Report abuse

Monsoonman | Oct 07, 2010, 08:38 PM EDT
I am not sure what you speak of my friend, we have anti trust laws on the books, if the govt. enforces them like it is supposed to do and stays out of the way the capitalist system works well. It rewards success and punishes failure. Very simple. In the liberal mindset nobody loses and outcomes are based to be equal. This insures everybody loses...

Report abuse

seanomelbourne | Oct 07, 2010, 07:45 PM EDT
I think you miss the point Mman. Enlighten me to the difference between fair return and corporate greed? As i pointed out the middle class and small business are held hostage by banks and corporations.They increase their prices with impunity forcing small business to pass it on to everyone else. How tight do you have to be squeezed my friend before you cry enough!enough!

Report abuse

Monsoonman | Oct 07, 2010, 02:16 AM EDT
Lad, I am not an advocate of price controls, let the market determine the prices. But you seem to be advocating that sort of behavior by saying greed is anti business. So do you invest in companies that think profit is a terrible word? When you were a businessman did you think profit was evil??

Report abuse

seanomelbourne | Oct 07, 2010, 12:35 AM EDT
Are you advocating price control Mman? Do we have to live (again) the corporate greed which almost ruined America and by proxy the rest of us.Surely banking and corporate boards should be accountable to the rest of society.Greed is anti business anti social and unnecessary for good corporate governance and fair dividends. I'm over 60 and lived through a number of boom/bust scenarios. The poor/middle class and small business are the only ones who suffer in these scenarios,yet when the Obama administration tries to pass laws to protect the above your right wing mates filibuster/castigate and call on their middle class voters to protest.I don't think you see whats happening here.YOU ARE VOTING FOR THEM TO PROTECT THEIR STATUS QUO and where doe's that leave you.Maybe the GOP can fool most of their supporters all of the time.

Report abuse

maloney | Oct 06, 2010, 10:11 PM EDT
communism = uniform & gun. socialism = no uniform & no gun. progressive = socialist. If it walks & quacks like a duck, it's a duck. ducks do come in different colors but they're still ducks. It's not that complicated, just different degrees.

Report abuse

Monsoonman | Oct 06, 2010, 09:24 PM EDT
Lad, I am not differentiating systems, I am just trying to come to grips with the mindset is all. How a socialist can condemn capitalism, yet at the same time reap the benefits of the capitalist system and get rich off of it, or at least make a nice living...Yet can attack business as greedy. Doesn't a "greedy" business mean a profit for the shareholders and added value to the stock and quarterly dividends? Don't people who are invested in oil companies want the price of oil to go higher so they can make more money? I personally know trust brats who are total liberals/socialists, yet they loved it when oil went to 150bbl and caused suffering to the rest of us. I know others who were invested in car manufacturers and loved it when gm could make a 14K profit on one minivan...doesn't that seem like an obscene amount of profit to a fair minded liberal? Shouldn't the prices be controlled so that sort of profit can't be made?

Report abuse

seanomelbourne | Oct 06, 2010, 07:10 PM EDT
Monsoonman! maybe if you differentiate between socialism,liberal democracies and communism and not like Maloney and lump every system you dislike into a convenient basket, therefore negating your need to understand various political systems and how they work.

Report abuse

maloney | Oct 06, 2010, 06:49 PM EDT
Soros comes to mind in the world of liberal socialists who manipulate for his own ends. He'll destroy entire economies to line his pockets.

Report abuse

Monsoonman | Oct 06, 2010, 10:51 AM EDT
I don't know lad, it seems there are Socialists or socialists. It seems that Socialists don't like corporations because they are greedy, but at the same time, it seems some socialists are more equal than others through the usage of corporations/capitalism to enrich themselves. Seems a bit hypocritical to this neutral observer.

Report abuse

seanomelbourne | Oct 05, 2010, 07:48 PM EDT
Monsoonman!!do socialist invest in corporations? It depends on how narrow your view is of socialism. You deem all left leaning governments to be socialist,yet they have vibrant stock markets and liberals (like myself)buy and sell shares.You need to pull yourself out of the 1930s and understand modern liberalism. As far as justifying atheism maybe you should remember that most atheist were once religious and do have a background knowledge of various religions it helps us come to a decision on which way to travel,a decision not made lightly i might add.

Report abuse

Monsoonman | Oct 04, 2010, 09:06 PM EDT
Lad, it seems atheists are more up on the technicalities of religion than the main stream religionists are. Probably due to defending/justifying themselves. How did the muslims and animists do?...Sorry Seano, the seiu love train left for dc without me, I am not a card carrying member of the communist party or public employee union so i was not going to get a free ride. Do socialists invest in corporations?

Report abuse

maloney | Oct 04, 2010, 11:29 AM EDT
Or Becks rally had at least 3 times the turnout of the one nation rally.

Report abuse

maloney | Oct 03, 2010, 07:30 PM EDT
Why no mention of the ONE NATION rally here on IC when all of the IC staff were at the rally? Not radical enough? To politically correct for comment?

Report abuse

seanomelbourne | Oct 03, 2010, 06:36 PM EDT
Monsoonman the piece I read never mentioned snake-handlers.I am succored you recognise us atheists as the most intelligent.Were you at the Washington march?

Report abuse

Next Page 1 of 2 pages



the Latest #IRISHTRAVEL


Log into IrishCentral with your Facebook account

or sign-in directly

E-Mail:
Password:
 Remember me Forgot my password
Not a member? Register Now!
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail