19 November 2013

Rush Revere Rides! (And Glenn Beck Is Close Behind)

Critics are offended the Pilgrims are portrayed as heroic and courageous, not as murdering, evil invaders. [No doubt to the consternation of the academic grudge-holding crowd.] Limbaugh believes kids are getting such a distorted and negative view of the nation’s founders and that’s why he wrote the book.

Turns out it is a darned good story, [Imagine that!!] remarkably popular, [Like I said . . .] and more Rush Revere adventures from American history seem sure to come. Horrifying, eh? (Bracketed comments mine.)
More of the review here

And another conservative talk radio host is running rings around historians. Glenn Beck's Miracles and Massacres is also near the top of the Amazon charts:
History is about so much more than memorizing facts. It is, as more than half of the word suggests, about the story. And, told in the right way, it is the greatest one ever written: Good and evil, triumph and tragedy, despicable acts of barbarism and courageous acts of heroism.

The things you’ve never learned about our past will shock you. The reason why gun control is so important to government elites can be found in a story about Athens that no one dares teach. Not the city in ancient Greece, but the one in 1946 Tennessee.
More here. And you can watch an interview about Beck and his book on the Today Show below. When it comes to American history, who is really reaching the masses? The answer to that question has to be driving the elites mad.


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Some might be surprised to hear Beck state that "We [America] did a lot wrong." Of course, he puts it all in context and is not agreeing with progressive historians who take that part of our history and gallop to a "let's transform America into a socialist state while we trash our traditions" perspective. And there's a very fundamental reason for that which escapes most progressives.

Yet there are some of the inner circle who are aware of the "reaching the masses" problem, even if they don't quite understand all the reasons it exists:
"The problem with academic historians is they are not reaching a wide popular audience," *Shoaf said. He said there is a need for factual, well-researched historical articles that are moderately priced and appeal to the masses. Shoaf said that in his business, people often are reluctant to read social history because they think it is boring. (Source.) *Dana Shoaf was (maybe still is) editor of the Civil War Times.
It's much more than just "boring", though that is a major problem. If you doubt me, read their books and blogs. People are also reluctant to read "social history" because they are sick and tired of being preached to by moralists who want to use their platform as an America bash-fest. Until they admit that and change, they'll never reach a wide popular audience. And that's a good thing.

16 comments:

Ralph Steel said...

Because ones book is near the top of the charts does not mean it is historically accurate.

Glenn Beck swears by his favorite historian David Barton who is no historian and had his book on Jefferson voted the worst history book.

You do know this right?

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Yes, recent history does prove popularity doesn't make one right, huh?

Yes, I know about David Barton. The Jefferson book was a debacle. But there are many historians who would probably like to correct things they've written, right?

http://hnn.us/article/44958

The real point of my post is that most Americans who are interested in our history are voting with their purchases and academia ain't doin' so hot. And there's a reason for that.

ropelight said...

Imagine that, a fanciful time-travel book taken to task for questionable historical accuracy. Lordy, lordy, what's next? Will we find out Barack Obama wasn't entirely accurate, historically or factually, when he told us we could keep our doctors or our health insurance? Perish the thought!

Now, on a more serious note, the public's rejection of current portrayals of historical events twisted to fit today's PC agenda is not limited to print media.

Witness the numbers of everyday TV viewers turning away from left-wing propaganda outlets to more accurate sources of information:

Noel Sheppard (11/19/13) at NewsBusters "recently reported that in the first week of November, Fox News nearly doubled the combined prime time viewers of CNN and MSNBC.

Continuing its momentum from a recently revamped evening lineup, Fox significantly more than doubled the combined prime time viewers of its rivals Monday.

As TVNewser reported, FNC averaged 2.3 million viewers Monday compared to MSNBC's 688k and CNN's 373k.

In the all important demographic of folks aged 25 to 54, FNC averaged 391k prime time viewers, MSNBC 189, and CNN 111.

Fox also dominated in the total day viewers nearly doubling the combined average of MSNBC and CNN."

The point here isn't that FOX is so good, but that the others are so bad.

So, it's indisputable that given an opportunity Americans are not only voting with their pocket books, but with their remote controls as well. Additionally, given the precipitous fall in Obama's approval rates it's also likely Americans will confirm their overwhelming disapproval in the November 2014 mid-term elections.

Ralph Steel said...

I think most people think they are going to learn something new and unknown or secretive to give them an upper hand or some better knowledge than the other guy.

Sadly that is not going to happen with Beck and Rush.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

You are correct Rope. The only audiences the left can keep are their captive ones. And they often have to camouflage what they're really all about.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Well Ralph, its good to know you at least read both books before coming to that conclusion. Way to broaden your horizons.

Ralph said...

Don't get me wrong I am not panning either book, I am just commenting on what I believe is the motivation behind some of the readers...and listeners of the two men who wrote the books.

Rope, you posted info showing that Fox News viewership is up...so how do you jive those numbers with the numerous data sets showing that people who watch Fox are less informed or more poorly informed about the issues of the day?

Just food for thought

Ralph said...

Rope said: "Additionally, given the precipitous fall in Obama's approval rates it's also likely Americans will confirm their overwhelming disapproval in the November 2014 mid-term elections."

Didn't a great many people say this about the 2012 election and look how that turned out.

What makes the difference?

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"how do you jive those numbers with the numerous data sets showing that people who watch Fox are less informed or more poorly informed about the issues of the day?"

Oh please. Dig deeper into that "data."

News Busters:

"As they did last year, researchers at Fairleigh Dickinson University have issued a nationwide survey that “confirms” that Fox News Channel viewers are especially uninformed. But Paul Bond at The Hollywood Reporter found this time, an FNC spokesperson blasted the findings and turned the tables on the university, pointing out that its own students don’t exactly measure up academically. (FDU was No. 585 on a Forbes ranking of 650 U.S. colleges.)

“Considering FDU’s undergraduate school is ranked as one of the worst in the country,” said the Fox flack, “we suggest the school invest in improving its weak academic program instead of spending money on frivolous polling – their student body does not deserve to be so ill-informed.”

The poll asked 1,185 people to answer five questions about international news events and four about national news. The average person getting their news from FNC answered 1.08 international questions correctly and 1.04 domestic questions correctly, both of which were lower than viewers of “no news.”

"Viewers of MSNBC scored next to last in international questions and third to last on the domestic questions, but liberals ignored that.

"But here’s what’s amazing: the Fairleigh Dickinson team didn’t actually identify people who got their news only from one source, as these surveys never seem to do. They used “multinomial logistic regression” to create representations of such people who were then compared “to a hypothetical construct of someone who had no recent news exposure.”

"In other words, why would anyone see this as a usable survey?"

(End of quote)

I have one for you Ralph. How is it that your ostensibly "more informed" outlets and voters got the Obamacare debacle wrong when the "poorly informed" got it right?

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

'Didn't a great many people say this about the 2012 election and look how that turned out."

Yes, look how that turned out. Things are going real well, aren't they?

Ralph said...

I am not saying that what you have said is wrong. I am just asking questions.

Regardless we on the right thought things were bad in 2008 and 2012 and look what happened. Yes things are worse, but will that be enough as it was not the last two times.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Ok Ralph. I don't have a problem with anyone saying I'm wrong. But there is now word coming out that the Feds cooked the books on unemployment in the last few months of the election. Someone in the commerce dept. has agreed to testify before Congress about it. They've admitted they lied about the Affordable Care Act. Yes, we know what happened in 2012, but had the truth been told, things would have turned out much differently. It's all a fraud.

ropelight said...

Ralph, I'm not accusing you of being an Obamabot, but let's separate food for thought from empty calories.

Left-wing ostriches react emotionally to facts which conflict with their comfortable assumptions of high-handed intellectual superiority in predictable patterns.

Yet, the deception impales them on the horns of a dilemma. Confronted increasingly with popular rejection, yet unwilling to learn from or even to acknowledge past mistakes, delusionals concern themselves with inventing reassuring fictions to shield fragile and presumptuous egos while leaving their naked rear ends exposed for all to see.

By any objective measure, Fox viewers are better informed than leftist potted plants because they regularly expose themselves to opposing views, which are almost universally ignored, suppressed, or ridiculed on leftist dominated news shows.

Which is exactly why more and more viewers reject nightly recitations of boring PC propaganda nostrums in favor of actual information.

Martin Bashir's recent self-humiliation is an example of the extent to which leftist hate speech is increasingly on public display and how oblivious leftists are to how ordinary Americans reject negatively to their insane hatreds and diatribes.

It ain't rocket science.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"Martin Bashir's recent self-humiliation is an example of the extent to which leftist hate speech is increasingly on public display and how oblivious leftists are to how ordinary Americans reject negatively to their insane hatreds and diatribes."

Yes, how about that? Remember all the calls and boycotts to get Limbaugh off the air for what he said about Sandra Fluke?

Bashir's comments were as bad, if not worse, and we hear nothing from the "better informed." Laughable.

Anonymous said...

Most people who would lean to the left simply don't watch the news of follow current events like those on the right. Fox news isn't necessarily 'better' it just appeals to a demographic that cares more about watching this garbage. Ignorance is bliss I always say and no news is good news!

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"Ignorance is bliss"

Yes, I can relate to a point, but beyond that point it is also dangerous.