Neither Beck nor Colbert present a news show. Have you spent much time watching either?
I have seen Beck attack the right with as much fervor as the left!

Even the Geneva Convention definitions are problematic. Kind of makes the definition of torture like that of harrassment.

Quote Originally Posted by SadisticNature View Post
Definitions are a complicated awkward thing.

I think for torture in the modern era one has to use the Geneva convention as interpreted by a court of law, which is still somewhat fuzzy as it involves a question as to whom (International War Crimes Tribunal, Supreme Court of the U.S., Supreme Court of the country whose citizens are subject to the crime?)

In an era prior to the Geneva convention, definitions are far more complicated.

As for the sanity of Glenn Beck I think that he is an opportunist who exploits conspiracy theories of the radical right to generate media success and personal profit. I think he's probably far more sane than a good portion of his viewers. The fact is this is more entertainment than news, and his character is likely a media personality much the way Stephen Colbert is.

The argument that he's "insane" is largely based in the fact that he buys in to all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories, on little to no evidence. Often retracting them at a later date in the face of overwhelming evidence, and then only reluctantly. People who believe something is true solely because they want it to be, even in the face of evidence to the contrary are by some definitions insane. Then there is the whole "fool me once, shame on you", "fool me twice, shame on me" argument. Glenn Beck uses sources that have a history of inaccuracy without qualms. Intentionally using bad sources to present the picture you want to believe as news, seems problematic to me. But I guess its nothing new for a station that won a verdict in a whistleblower case on the basis of "Falsifying the news is not a crime."