He is talking about the idea that Hollywood is libral and in Malibu there are a bunch of celebs that are forced to evacuate their homes.

There are a few choice celebs who would actually prefer to live in another country because they hate our government, but not nearly as many as the statement implies.

So that justifies him saying that? There's also a whole bunch of celebrities that are not liberal, he's just going to lump them in with the rest? I have to disagree with you, you've got to be supportive of what someone is going through even if you don't agree with their point of view. In times like these we have to put our differences aside.

I totally agree with you. I didn't mean to try and justify what he said, just explain more in depth.

It's always easier to get people to agree with your own extreme ideas when you can lump it into 'us vrs them.'

I think that celebrating ANY tragedy is sick. There are horrible people in this world, and while I would never cry at their passing, nor would I chortle with glee at their suffering.

No one was agreeing with the guy, chillax.

I am relaxed, I just thought I'd voice my opinion on this topic. :)

Anyone who believes anything that Media Matters says, enjoys being taken for a ride.

The site's goal is to twist the words of the people whom they disagree with, paint all "non-liberals" with a broad brush of badness, and then sell it to the rest of the media.

Anyone who has watched them in the past month knew that an attack on Beck was immanent. The attack on O'Reilly (calling him a racist) was a disaster, and backfired horribly. Then they went after Rush... who used it to raise over $2 million dollars. And now Beck.

I'm no fan of Beck... nor have I ever watched his program... but I have read Media Matters. And I'm confidant saying any news coming out of that outfit is more than just suspect... it is lies upon lies upon lies. You’d be better off getting your news from “The Onion.”

If you would have listened to the clip hosted there you would know that he did, in fact, say what they are accusing him of saying. Just because it's hosted on a site that may have a liberal bias doesn't mean it didn't happen. It might mean to be a bit more wary that words may be twisted, but with a direct quote and an audio clip I don't suspect them of twisting anything.

It is all very simple mathematics.

Glenn Beck = idiot

Well, that's not entirely true. We've seen (in the past few weeks... and I really don't want to go into this in yet another post) Media Matters take a quote... or at least what they say is a full quote... and then tell the audience what to think. Sometimes, they can play the surrounding moments, and still not include the full context of the argument.

The Media Matters creator was on one of the morning shows a few weeks ago (David Brock is his name I believe)... and was asked whether he edited one of the clips he put up one the website. "Of course not," he said. "We just included the relevant parts."

Somehow he decided that wasn't "editing." This is what I mean when I say they are not to be trusted.

He doesn't say all celebrities hate America, or all celebrities are liberal. He implies that he thinks some celebrities hate America, and they happen to be losing their homes.

Also, nowhere is Beck being unsupportive. He simply says "I think there is a handful of people who hate America." (Opinion) "Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today." (Fact)

I really don't get it. Are we assuming that when he says "unfortunately" he's being sarcastic? I listened to it, it doesn't sound like sarcasm to me. He doesn't say "they had it coming" or "they deserved it". It just sounds like an aside to relate the topic to current events.

I've never heard of this Beck fella, but it appears Media Matters is inventing an issue out of thin air to discredit him. The Salon article is even worse in it implies he was referring to all victims of the fire as America haters. That's a flat-out lie.