Not a fan of Glenn Beck

To the Editor:

For some time now I have heard Glenn Beck referenced in political discussions, primarily with members of my church.

I never was really interested in viewing or listening to him until certain of his racial-divisive comments were brought to my attention. In watching parts of his show a couple of times it did not take me long to develop a personal assessment that he is, for lack of a better term, loony tunes.

My first viewing of him opened with him standing in front of a graphic of a tree with Woodrow Wilson at the roots, Barack Obama at the top and numerous individuals surrounding the tree that he labeled as radical subversives.

He went on to label the mainstream media as the "fringe media" in an attempt to posture himself at the voice of reason.

I found it laughable when he claimed that that mainstream media would view his vision as a "conspiracy theory" when in his reality he was the only one who could see the "big picture."

I wondered just why so many in the mainstream media are afraid of exposing him and his racially and economically divisive, paranoia stoking rhetoric. I found it truly terrifying that so many, otherwise intelligent, people would become followers of such a raving lunatic.

Fourteen years ago terrorists bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The public and the government immediately jumped to the conclusion that it must be Middle-Eastern terrorists because they had been conditioned by the right-wing media to make that jump. It was found that the perpetrators were actually domestic terrorists who apparently bought other talking points of that same right-wing media, that the government is the problem, and that those terrorists used that belief to justify blowing up a federal building, killing 168 and injuring over 680.

Fear-mongering can have very real, even deadly, consequences. Our nation is now sharply divided and threats against the president have even been discussed on Twitter.

It is fear-mongers like Glenn Beck who feed that division and hatred. They must be confronted and exposed for what they truly are. I would prefer that your paper, and others, achieve this task before the inevitable consequences occur as opposed to your making the connection in your reporting of those consequences.

Marc Moore

Poland