WP's Dana Milbank is writing a book about Glenn Beck, says he's 'pure genius'

[Newsjock]

Source: Politico

Dana Milbank recently wrote how a Fox News star has really “captured the moment," before posing the question: “Is Glenn Beck America?”

Milbank, who only had about 750 words to tackle that question in his Washington Post column, is now writing a book on the conservative radio and television host: "Tears of a Clown." And he’s already started researching.

“I’ve signed up for the elite membership on GlennBeck.com,” Milbank told POLITICO.

Milbank said that what sets Beck apart is a willingness to go where other hosts will not. “I think he has a lower bar, and commercially, it’s pure genius,” Milbank said. “He has found the absolute sweet spot in the market right now.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0210/Milbank_writing_Beck_book_Tears_of_a_Clown.html

[tanyev]

1. Is Glenn Bek Ameria?

And yeah, I left out the letter Y on purpose.

[cbdo2007]

2. Beck is genius - he makes millions of $$$ just saying things to make people mad.

It's a formula and new kids come out of college every year with broadcasting degrees trying to follow in the Rush/Beck/Hannity model. I've even known people who were liberals who switched sides and started the "conservative radio" format themselves just for the money.

[Ganja Ninja]

3. "Dana Milbank is writing a book about Glenn Beck"

Naturally that explains the "pure genius" comment.:eyes:

[frazzled]

4. No, he says "commercially, it's pure genius"

It's right there in the snippet of quote you post. What is more, he says that having a lower bar than most television hosts is what makes it so commerically saleable.

[Berry Cool]

5. In that case, Jerry Springer is the most brilliant man on TV. n/t

[cbdo2007]

7. And you would argue with that how?

Well, he's not THE most brilliant man on tv but definitely one of them.

[EFerrari]

13. He's not a genius, he's a manipulator. That's about as brilliant as

figuring out you can get a dog to follow you by holding up a dog treat.

[KittyWampus]

14. all entertainment is manipulation. Smart entertainers understand psychology enough

to push certain buttons.

[EFerrari]

15. Hmm, there's a difference between presenting an object or product,

intending an effect and outright manipulation.

[KittyWampus]

17. Comedians rely on our holding preconceived notions. By tweaking them, they get laughs.

Magicians rely on our being so reliant on sight and how our eyes are distracted by movement.

I enjoy this topic. It's something that people don't talk about much. It's really informative though!

Think of all the manipulation going on in advertising, religious programming.

Even fine art programs try to elicit emotions from us.

[EFerrari]

21. It's the emotional version of courting vs. date rape, to put it in extreme terms.

Comedians make a distinction between a "good" laugh and a "cheap one", i.e., a coerced one. When people talk about responding to plays or movies or even magic shows, they speak of the suspension of disbelief -- which is a tacit agreement between the audience and the production. And that "suspension" depends in part on the audience not feeling manipulated but as if they are somewhat in charge of their experience.

It is interesting. :)

[cbdo2007]

20. The difference is.....

that you won't make $$Millions$$ of dollars figuring out that you can get a dog to follow you by holding a dog treat.

But if you can make Millions of dollars doing that then you would be considered a genius too. You may not be seen as "intelligent" necessarily, but even that is debateable. Different people are "geniuses" about different things. Springer is certainly a genius for embracing a concept and parlaying that into a multi-million dollar business. That's something that most people couldn't do.

It's no different than anything else on tv. All tv is entertainment, even the news and it's all created to make money.

[frazzled]

12. In his time, perhaps he was

if you count getting people's attention and making money for the producers: he created a new kind of television. That's not a value judgment. Springer and Beck, in their very different ways, were/are both crap. Both, I might add, know it is crap, but winning, financially lucrative crap.

Look, this country is addicted to sensationalism in all its forms--whether it is deathtrap luge courses or television shows filled with crime and violence or really bad talent or a fascination with a dumb brunette from Alaska. That is the source of the great American downfall, and we willingly embrace it.

[KittyWampus]

16. Springer always admits to what his tv show is. He would make the point that the people

he has on and the issues they face and the way they face them are common amongst a certain subset of America.

Why is it so awful to feature the lower rungs of our economic ladder hashing stuff out?

How is it we can have a show "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" and have no qualms about that?

Edit- I am not advocating for Springer's tv show but do think he makes a good point about Class and how it's shown on tv and how people react to it.

[frazzled]

22. I have no problem with Springer

But it was trash in the same way Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous was trash. It's all about getting you to watch commercials.

[Leopolds Ghost]

18. Well, Washington Post just laid off half their staff and downsized the paper in half -- they support

Lowest common denominator tactics.

Like NBC, Don Graham's strategy is to decrease readership of the print publication in order to increase profits.

Commercially, it's pure genius. Dana Milbank supports the "New Post" in its decision to literally abdicate from trying to compete with the NYT as a legitimate newspaper (they didn't even publish a SUPER BOWL EDITION!) so naturally they keep him on.

[KittyWampus]

6. Whole Quote- “I think he has a lower bar, and commercially, it’s pure genius,”

Milbank is one for sarcasm and snark and often doesn't pull it off well.

I watched Beck ONCE for about 5 minutes on tv and couldn't tolerate it. Before that I'd only seen momentary clips posted in video section of DU.

I kind of agree Beck has an extremely low bar. I'd say he's also crossed a few lines regarding content.

[JamesA1102]

8. Milbank lied about Obama

The guy has no credibility.

[WhiteTara]

9. commercially, it's pure genius?

Really? I thought he lost all his sponsors.

[thereismore]

10. No surprise there. Milbank has always been a douche. nt

[EFerrari]

11. Is Dana Milbank a sellout hack?

lol

[Leopolds Ghost]

19. The whole paper has sold out, they say they are compete w/ Wash.Times and Examiner, NOT NYT.

They didn't even publish a FUCKING SUPERBOWL EDITION -- THEY PUT IT BELOW THE FOLD. The Post has gone from respected news source to trash cage liner in only 15 years under Don Graham (a Reagan republican.)

[EFerrari]

23. Can't argue with that!!

[Jim__]

24. Milbanks article also refers to: "His nightly diet of falsehoods and conspiracies on Fox"

Here:

The 45-year-old recovering alcoholic and Mormon convert has become the first true demagogue of the information age. His nightly diet of falsehoods and conspiracies on Fox, and his daily outrages on the radio, have propelled his popularity past even Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. His method is simple: He goes places where others are forbidden by conscience.

Death panels? Government health insurance for dogs? FEMA concentration camps? An Obama "civilian national security force" like Hitler's SS or Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard? An administration official advocating forced abortions and sterilization agents in drinking water? Beck trafficked in them all in 2009.

[arcadian]

25. So Millbank is jumping on the Beck bandwagon.

What's he going to play? The washboard or the jug?