Skip to main content
Search
Services


 

Return to Transcripts main page

GLENN BECK

Were Duke Players` Rights Violated?; Tom Tancredo Stands up for Dog the Bounty Hunter; Doorman Gets Personal Thank-You from Obama

Aired April 11, 2007 - 19:00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GLENN BECK, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, outrage over Imus continues. But where`s the outrage over the Duke lacrosse players?

ROY COOPER, NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL: We believe these three individuals are innocent.

BECK: Now the charges are dropped, will any civil rights leaders stand up for their civil rights?

And did the P.C. police raid PBS? A documentary about Islamic extremists is at the center of a new controversy.

Plus, what is it like to work with Rosie O`Donnell? We`ll talk to somebody who experienced the wrath of Rosie firsthand and lived to tell the tale.

All this and more tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: Tonight, I want to tell you a story about two college sports teams. Both teams include young athletes who were unfairly slammed in public by some thoughtless, uncaring individual or worse.

One team is, of course, the Rutgers women`s basketball team. The other? The Duke lacrosse team.

Here`s the point tonight. Real civil rights leaders will stand up for anyone whose rights are violated, regardless of race. Are there any out there? Here`s how I got there.

The whole world is on fire over the stupid, reprehensible comments made by Don Imus about the Rutgers team. Staples, along with Procter & Gamble now, have decided to pull their advertising from the Imus radio show. People are organizing huge protests of CBS and MSNBC.

Every leader -- civil rights leader around is jumping on the bandwagon and rightfully so. They should be outraged by the stupid comments.

The media, though -- the media is falling all over themselves to show that the women of Rutgers are not, to quote Imus, "nappy-headed hos." They are smart. They are hard-working women who have accomplished a lot in their lives. This is all great.

However, I have a little problem with consistency. Do you remember how the Duke lacrosse team was accused of rape and basically convicted by the media and the public last year? Well, here`s what happened today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CIP)

COOPER: Today we are filing notices of dismissal for all charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans. The result is that these cases are over, and no more criminal proceedings will occur.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: OK. The case was not just dismissed, it`s not just closed. The attorney general said these guys are innocent.

Apparently, it`s now become clear that the woman who accused the Duke players of raping her was lying. The Duke players now are going to be free to live their lives. Really? What`s left of it?

In the public consciousness they are forever going to be associated with rape. They are forever tarnished by this woman. Can you imagine going into a job interview with the words "Duke lacrosse" on your resume?

Come on. You really think that people are not going to look at that and say, excuse me? The words "Duke lacrosse" have become symbolic with a horrific gang rape.

Meanwhile, the accuser is being described -- and if I heard this one more time, my head is going to explode. She`s being described in the media as an "exotic dancer." Let`s set the record straight here: she`s a stripper. Nothing real "exotic" about that.

She accused these young men of not being nappy-headed hos, but of being violent and privileged white rapists. That`s not just an offensive insult said by some old fart on the radio that nobody`s even listening to anymore. That is a label that you may never, ever shake.

Civil rights leaders, you guys were all so quick to denounce these guys, you know, even as the evidence piled up that this whole thing was a sham.

And now she`s changed her testimony. Now the charges have been dropped. Now the attorney general has deemed them, quote, "innocent." Will you same civil rights leaders come out in defense of these three guys? Will anyone hold a rally over their civil rights which were violated? And will anybody call for the firing of the D.A. Mike Nifong or the stripper, the stripper who destroyed these kids` lives?

You know what. I want to be consistent. What Don Imus said was repulsive and indefensible. I don`t think, however, we should go firing and go on a witch-hunt over language. But I also don`t want to call for the firing of the stripper. Oh, but I do support a two-week suspension of all her stripper-related activities at the pole.

Here`s what I know tonight. The Rutgers team knows who they are. The world knows who they are. They are not anything like the women that Don Imus described. The media has helped them make that extremely clear.

However, the world needs to also recognize that the Duke team members are not anything like the men the stripper described. Where is the media? Where are the civil rights leaders now?

Here`s what I don`t know. What are the consequences of these accusations in today`s world? I know that if you say what Don Imus said you can get thrown off the radio perhaps, but what about the other?

Joining me now is criminal defense attorney Mickey Sherman and nationally syndicated columnist Earl Ofari Hutchinson. Earl, do you see any of these civil rights leaders coming out to defend these guys now?

EARL OFARI HUTCHINSON, NATIONAL SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: No, I don`t and I`ll tell you why. The interesting thing about that is about three months ago in my second column I said, and I challenged civil rights leaders, many African-American leaders in that area in North Carolina, the Durham area.

I said, "Look, you have made an issue consistently for the last year about these Duke lacrosse players. Now we know the charges are bogus. We know it was fabricated. We know there was perjured testimony. We saw DNA that showed absolutely nothing. Here`s the challenge to you. Step up to the plate. Speak out."

I heard you say before, Glenn, about the rallies and demanding the resignation of Nifong. All of those things should be done. But I would even take it a step further.

I would call the press conference. I would stand side by side at the press conference if I was the civil rights leaders, and we know who we`re talking about. I would stand by them, the three players, their parents, their attorneys, and I would say, "We support you. We were wrong if we called for criminal charges and prosecutions before that."

And the second thing I would do is I would call for the resignation of Nifong.

BECK: You know what, Earl? You`d have credibility if you did that. You know, you would show yourself as not being just about politics and power, and you would actually have credibility. Apparently that`s, you know -- that`s too much to ask for from some people.

Mickey, witch-hunt, I keep hearing -- we`ve got a story here in the "Real Story" in just a minute about PBS and possibly telling their documentary producers, "Don`t you ask people, you know, what their politics are before you put them on a documentary?"

We are on a full-fledged witch-hunt in this country, whether it be based on race or politics or your belief on Islamic terror. It doesn`t matter. We`re just being shut down every step of the way.

MICKEY SHERMAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, broadcasters, whether they`re talk show hosts or morning hosts or comics, they`re allowed to be stupid. They`re allowed to make ridiculously stupid and inane comments.

And the litmus test is whether it`s funny and entertaining, and you measure against that against whether or not they`ve offended anybody. And if they offend people they`re going to get lashed out as has Don Imus. They`re going to get reprimanded.

But the real judge of whether or not they`re going to be successful, whether or not they`re right or wrong, is going to be the viewers and the listeners.

Let the system work. We don`t -- we don`t need to censor them. We don`t need to fire them. Let them decide whether or not they want to listen or hear these people.

BECK: So Mickey, let me go to -- let me go to the Duke players.

SHERMAN: Yes.

BECK: These guys, their life is ruined. I mean, they will always be known as, "Oh, you were the guy who was accused of rape." Is there any kind of recourse? Is there anything that can be taken against this -- I`m sorry I`m not going to call her an exotic dancer -- the stripper?

SHERMAN: No, and you know what? You`re mad at the wrong person. An exotic dancer, stripper, she`s obviously a demented person with some serious problems, substance abuse problems as we know. That`s not the problem.

You have the state`s attorneys office, a prosecutor. They`re the ones who are supposed to weigh and reflect as to whether or not they believe the person. And I don`t blame him for bringing the case very quickly. But he -- very, very soon thereafter he knew he had hard evidence that proved the case was bogus.

So, you know, usually a rape case is like a one-on-one, so the fact that there was no hard evidence at first, that doesn`t bother me. But once the evidence became clear.

And then he started playing games with the disclosure of forensic evidence and the bogus lineup. I mean, it was so bad that, I mean, whoever would think that an attorney general of the state would come out and say not only do we not have a provable case, because that`s usually the language, we can`t prove the case.

As you pointed out, Glenn, they said they`re innocent. You don`t get better than that.

BECK: Yes.

SHERMAN: So that`s the label these guys will have, which ain`t so bad.

BECK: Yes. Well, you`re you`ve thrown away a lot of your college career, as well, though, at the same time.

Earl, what role does the media have in all of this? I mean, you`ve got to look at the media and say we`re part of it. I mean, everybody just jumps on this bandwagon because people will consume it. When the -- when the world doesn`t revolve around the truth anymore, how do we survive?

HUTCHINSON: There`s two things. I would even add one other thing, too, ratings, ratings, ratings. You know, we`ve got into a thing now with the media, where if it sells, if we can enflame the public and it sells, then we`ll do it.

So at some point in time there`s going to have to be a self-policing of the media. Look, you just can`t put stuff out there, unsubstantiated allegations, inflammable things, irresponsible talk and keep doing this, because you think it`s going to get a tenth of a percentage point ratings bump-up.

There`s going to have to be some kind of mechanism. Yes, the viewers are part of it. Yes, the advertisers, but, yes, also corporate officials, broadcast officials have a duty and responsibility to be fair and balanced.

BECK: Mickey, Earl, thank you very much. We`ll be back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: What do you think about her traveling and being new secretary of state?

MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, you know, I think it`s a huge mistake for her. And I think it`s one of the most embarrassing and most partisan and most ill-conceived actions of any leader of our country in the last decade.

It`s an embarrassment to us. It`s an embarrassment to her. It`s unacceptable, and if people feel that we have the wrong foreign policy then, of course, they`re free to change presidents, and that happens every four years. But, you know, we stand united. We fall divided.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: All right. Tomorrow on the radio program, I`ll be talking to America`s mayor, Rudy Giuliani. Don`t miss it on the radio program tomorrow.

Now, seems to me we`re living in a world that is getting more complex every day that goes by, and most people want you to believe that the issues that we face today are not black and white.

Some are gray, but most of them, you know what? Don`t believe it. We have to realize as people that good and evil are at war with one another, and it is time to pick a side.

Sometimes we get really, really lucky, and the difference between good guys and the bad guys is crystal clear to almost everybody. Now while this guy may not wear a cowboy hat, though I wouldn`t put it past him, Dog the Bounty Hunter is clearly one of the good guys.

That hasn`t always been the case, but the guy, Dwayne Chapman, known as Dog, has devoted himself now to sniffing out and bringing in fugitives who have fled from justice.

This is what he did with a guy wearing a very black hat, Andrew Luster. This is the guy who was the Max Factor heir worth millions of dollars. He fled to Mexico after being convicted on 86 counts of rape, horrible, brutal rape, 86 counts.

Dog followed the scent south of the border and apprehended Luster. Only, the Mexican authorities say that in capturing a convicted rapist, Dog denied Luster his liberty. And now it looks like Mexicans want to trap and try Dog for kidnapping.

Que Pasa, Mexico, what`s up with that? This guy has taken a rapist off of your streets and now you want to repay him with jail time?

Dog, I believe, deserves American support, not a stint in a Mexican prison, which honestly, is going to be a death sentence if he has to serve it.

Thankfully, one man who agrees with me is trying to make this situation right. His name is Tom Tancredo. He`s a Republican congressman from Colorado, 2008 presidential hopeful.

Congressman, odds that Dog is actually going to go and serve prison time in Mexico?

REP. TOM TANCREDO (R-CO), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I don`t know. I don`t know what to say the odds are. They`re certainly probably no better than 50/50. But there is hope that this -- that the -- I want to say tribunal, but I think it`s actually more than three people. It`s an appeals court down there to which this thing has now gone, this whole issue.

There is hope that they will respond to pressure, public pressure, both from the United States and maybe even from -- from Mexico. So that`s what we`re going to try. That`s our last hope.

BECK: I have to tell you. Everything -- I mean, you and I have talked about so many times before. Something doesn`t smell right. There is corruption all around the border. We know there`s corruption in Mexico. They set this guy up. They`re saying that he was taking across the border. That`s what you would be charged with in kidnapping, is taking them across the border.

They had a roadblock at the driveway of the Mexican police station where Dog was taking Andrew Luster.

TANCREDO: Right.

BECK: How is this not a total setup?

TANCREDO: Yes. We certainly -- this is great cause to believe that one of the reasons why some of the officials in Mexico were upset about this whole thing is that Andrew Luster was spreading a lot of money around the area, the town.

It`s not that they didn`t know that they had this guy down there, and what you have to say to yourself is why isn`t the Mexican government giving Dwayne Chapman a medal instead of trying to extradite him for, I think, it`s illegal detention? I think that`s what the actual charge is.

And because, of course, this was a rotten guy, this Andrew Luster. He`s now serving 124 years in the California penitentiary for 86 counts, from aggravated rape, you name it.

BECK: He was -- he was doing the same thing in Mexico that he was doing here in the United States. I mean, they found the knockout drugs. They found the videotapes. He was -- he was raping women in Mexico.

TANCREDO: That`s right.

BECK: At the same time. You`re exactly right that they should give him a medal.

TANCREDO: Yes. So what`s happening instead, I think, is that they are suggesting, the Mexican government, and this is all reading the tea leaves.

BECK: Yes.

TANCREDO: I can`t be sure, but I -- I think that it is this. We have requested from Mexico the extradition of several very, very dangerous and - - you know, people have committed murders in the United States, fled to Mexico. We have -- we have requested that they extradite them back, and they have -- they have actually responded in a couple of cases.

Now there are a lot more out there, and the people that we actually got back, they`re horrible people. I mean, you would think Mexico wouldn`t want them in their country anyway.

So I think this is sort of a thing saying, look, you`ve got somebody we want, and I want to -- we want to see whether or not you`ll respond to these requests for extradition like we have.

BECK: OK.

TANCREDO: But it`s not the same thing because, of course, Dwayne "Dog" Chapman did something of value, really, to the Mexican -- for the Mexican government and bringing Andrew Luster to justice.

BECK: OK. This story is very complex, but there is a way that the average person watching can help. There is a letter now going to Congress, and it`s available, I believe, on your web site, where people can sign their name and say stop the insanity, America. Do not extradite Dwayne "Dog" Chapman.

TANCREDO: The letter is actually to the Mexican court. It is to the appeals court. And it`s my understanding -- I mean, we`ve talked with the lawyer for the Chapmans. We`ve made sure that this is all appropriate, that we`re not doing anything that could harm him, that in fact in this case it could help.

We are circulating -- it`s a dear colleague from me and my colleagues in the Congress of the United States, asking hem to sign on to a letter to this appeals court saying please drop the extradition. Look at the facts of the case. And we lay it out there.

Yes, it is on my site, and then what we`ll do is everybody that signs up, that gives us their name, we will then contact the congressman.

BECK: OK. Great.

TANCREDO: That congressman and say, sign the letter, you know, and let`s send it on.

BECK: Congressman, thank you very much. And the web site is at the bottom of your screen. And don`t forget: tune into tomorrow`s program when I`ll sit down for a long conversation with Dog the Bounty Hunter and his wife, Beth. It is a revealing look at what this case has done to them and how they`re weathering the storm. Don`t miss it tomorrow.

Now coming up tonight, the producers of a new documentary on moderate Islam claims PBS may be pulling the plug. Is it a case of cold feet or something more? That`s tonight`s "Real Story".

And a new book dishes the dirt on what it`s like to work with Rosie O`Donnell. Sort of. The book`s author is here to reveal all of the details.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: When a Manhattan doorman made an online donation of $25 to Barack Obama`s presidential campaign, he officially declared his support for a new candidate and abandoned his longtime favorite, Hillary Clinton.

Now to his surprise, someone in Obama`s campaign decided to thank him for his support. That someone was Barack Obama himself. They chatted for a few minutes.

I`d like to introduce you to the doorman. His name is Greg Smith. Welcome.

GREG SMITH, BARACK OBAMA SUPPORTER: Mr. Beck, thank you for having me.

BECK: Good to meet you. I read the letter that you sent to Barack Obama, and I was intrigued because we come from different political backgrounds. I`m a conservative. You`re clearly a liberal, which is totally fine. But you said in the letter exactly what I had been feeling for so long.

I am so sick of the partisan politics. I`m so sick of all of the bickering back and forth. Let`s just unite as Americans and just be cool to each other and try to get something done. You see that in Barack Obama?

SMITH: I do. I do indeed. It`s funny that you used the word united, because we`re losing sight of the fact that we are a country that says we are the United States of America. But I`ve met people on the street who have told me that, essentially, we`re not really united as we should be.

And though our flag says that, we act differently, and we have a tendency to do that. We say things on occasion and do the polar opposite.

BECK: Yes.

SMITH: And America needs to recognize that.

BECK: You know, it`s funny, George Washington said a couple of things. He said that our -- that our parties were going to separate us. He said these parties are just a bad idea. And then he was yelling at, you know, two of the other founding fathers and said let`s start uniting on principles. We can argue on policies all we want.

SMITH: Yes.

BECK: And it`s time to unite on that.

SMITH: It is true. It is time, but it`s interesting. We just met, and I`m already labeled now a liberal and you`re saying...

BECK: No, no.

SMITH: Let me just finish the point.

BECK: Yes, yes.

SMITH: In terms of just my letter, but my letter in essence comes back from Jamaica where I came. And I came from a country that, while I was there as a child, my folks saw this as the land of opportunity. And they saw fit to bring me here, and I`m thankful that they did.

But we have strayed in the selling of America in terms of the greatness that it is. And that`s what Mr. Obama does. He let us realize the hopefulness that we do have in this country. There are people that are leaving their native land, OK.

I must say I essentially became a U.S. citizen so I could vote, but in doing that I had to give up the fact that I was going to give up Jamaica, and that wasn`t easy. That wasn`t -- that was something I wrestled with. And I wrestled with it for a while, and we lose sight of that.

Americans here lose sight of what it is to be American, and it`s an awesome thing. And it`s a hopeful nation and it`s a nation that if you listen to Barack Obama -- and I urge you all, too, to pay attention to him, and to go out and get both his books. Because I bought his first book essentially before anyone got involved with him. I bought "Dreams from My Father".

BECK: Yes.

SMITH: "Dreams from My Father", and just the title alone resonated in me because my dad left me in Jamaica almost the same age as...

BECK: I wish I had more time with you. I`m out of time, but I am so pleased with your -- with you come here, you make a name for yourself and do the right thing for your family. And now you`re on the phone with possibly the next president of the United States. Congratulations, man, the American dream.

SMITH: Thank you so much. Thank you very much.

BECK: OK. Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Welcome to the "Real Story."

Last fall, I aired a special on radical Islam. It was called "Exposed: The Extremist Agenda." Got to tell you, that got so many people I mean just out of their minds and nuts. I found out quickly about the extraordinarily powerful and influential groups in this country that want to make sure that you only see one side of Islam. And, believe me, I heard from every single one of those groups.

For the first time in my life, I really started to understand how political correctness and personal agendas are silencing the voices of moderate Muslims and those in the media who want to speak out about a perversion of a religion. That`s why I was so glad when I originally heard that PBS, the Public Broadcasting Service, had spent millions of taxpayer dollars to finance an 11-part documentary series called "America at a Crossroads," to, quote, "explore the challenges confronting the post-9/11 world."

Well, one of the 11 parts, the most interesting, at least to me, was one called "Islam versus Islamists." This is just another word for extremist. This episode focused on how moderate Muslims everywhere, from the U.S. to the U.K. to France, are clashing with Muslim fundamentalists.

But the real story is, you`re probably never, ever going to see this documentary. PBS says they`re delaying the release because the film, quote, "is a mess." They say it has no structure. It wasn`t ready in time. It`s weak. It`s incoherent. Bladdy, bladdy, bladdy, bladdy. I got two pages from PBS explaining.

To be honest with you, after reading their explanation, if I hadn`t have gone through the "Exposed" experience on the program, I probably would have been inclined to believe them. Unfortunately, I`ve seen how these things work from inside the newsroom.

What you have to understand -- and you`ll only get this from standing in a newsroom -- is there are two completely different schools of thought on who`s responsible for radical Islam. There are those that believe from the West and poverty causes the problem and, in some cases, we deserve everything we get, while others, like me, tend to blame the madrassas, the culture of hate, the extremists themselves who are only interested in a political agenda.

That clash of ideas is real, and it is happening in newsroom all over the globe. And I bet you that PBS is no different. But unlike the others who will take this material on, PBS has another problem. It`s called government money.

When you`re a taxpayer program, when you are funded by you and me, there`s another level of political correctness that you have got to worry about or else you run the risk of alienating enough people, and you put yourself out of business. That`s why I think the real story is simple: PBS is frightened.

They are scared of the groups that will inevitably threaten them with the boycotts, lawsuits. More importantly, they are scared of a lobbying campaign in Congress that could threaten their very funding. When your budget is at stake, it is only natural to stay away from controversy. But let me ask you this: Where is the controversy?

Why is it OK for me to show what the media calls a firebrand radical cleric that is spewing hate against the West, but it somehow or another is controversial for me to show a Muslim denouncing that same cleric? Why can we run Osama bin Laden`s latest propaganda video on the 6:00 news, but everybody`s got to walk on egg shells if we want to put on a Muslim who says that`s not what the Koran says, the Koran preaches peace?

There are two sides to every story, and PBS has one, but my gut and my honestly limited experience tell me that the truth lies closer to the filmmakers. Of course, there is an easy way to settle this. We called PBS. Let me see the film. PBS, I`ll watch it with an open mind. Let me look at it. If it is incoherent or just really unbalanced -- honestly, I hope you`re right. I`ll get that message out for you. I hope the film is a mess, because that means it`s being pulled for a plot, not politics.

Unfortunately, knowing what I know, I sincerely doubt that`s the case, and PBS ain`t going to show it to me. Martyn Burke is the film`s producer. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, he is from American Islamic Forum on Democracy. He is one of the moderate voices featured in this documentary and a new contributor to this program.

Martyn, let me start with you. You believe your film is being tampered with in ways that undermine journalistic independence. What does that mean exactly?

MARTYN BURKE, PRODUCER, "ISLAM VS. ISLAMISTS": Yes, well, I`ll give you one example. We were doing an investigative report on how the Nation of Islam, the so-called black Muslims, in Chicago were being funded by the Saudi Arabian fundamentalists through the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C. And PBS, through WETA, the flagship station in Washington, appointed an adviser to oversee our efforts, and that adviser was from the Nation of Islam.

BECK: My gosh.

BURKE: I have never, ever heard of an investigative unit having to report to a person from the very place they are investigating. That was the first thing. And, of course, we protested that. We said, "This is just not journalism as we understand it in America."

BECK: OK. So everybody knows, let me just give a quick highlight of who you are. You`re the guy who did the documentary on the "Pirates of Silicon Valley." I mean, you`re not some jokester. You`re not me doing a special. And you had real, credible journalists on this project with you.

BURKE: Yes. Well, if I can even take that a step further, we hired a team which included a Pulitzer Prize nominee from last year for his coverage of Islam in Europe. We had a woman and her team from Toronto, Canada, from "The Toronto Star," who were profiled in the "New York Times" as being one of the top journalistic teams in this field.

We had investigative reporters from Scandinavia who had won every award in their field. This was a first-rate team, which we had to -- which we, my partners, Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev, had to convince them and they had to convince us. This was a rigorous interpretation of the facts.

BECK: All right. Zuhdi, what was it that was in this that America is just not going to see?

DR. M. ZUHDI JASSER, AMERICAN ISLAMIC FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY: It was basically about, I believe, the struggle of moderates and why -- you know, when you ask, where the moderate voices? Martyn basically interviewed some of the imams, interviewed some of the leading Muslim propagandists locally that have tried to suffocate our voice at the American Islamic Forum that don`t want me to get out the fact that I love the spirituality of my faith and I want to raise my kids Muslim, but I don`t want them to hijack my faith for their political motives and their political agenda.

BECK: Let me further this with you, because you are, in many ways, to Muslims, you are a credible voice, where PBS came back to me today and said, "Irshad Manji is on." And I love Irshad Manji. She`s been on this program. But I will tell you that, because of her lifestyle, a lot of Muslims say, "Well, she`s not really a Muslim," et cetera, et cetera.

You are a guy who lives every word of the Koran in all of its ways, correct?

JASSER: Yes. I mean, you could call me a social conservative even. And, you know, I love the spirituality, but my choice to live socially conservative is mine alone. It should not be governments`. It should not be the imams`. And they`ve stolen our pulpits for their political agenda. And when we get a story, a documentary that shows how the only pulpit I have to speak from is the media, they want to suffocate that and not let the world hear about it.

BECK: Martyn, your film was called irresponsible because it`s alarmist and unfair. How much danger do you think -- you`ve been in this business for a while -- how much danger do you think there is when there`s this kind of political correctness and pressure going on to get another side out of a story? How much trouble are we in?

BURKE: Glenn, first of all, the comments on our film became increasingly hysterical from the PBS people after we decided we were not going to be apologists for the Islamists who are silencing the moderate Muslims around the world.

And by silencing, I mean, we traipsed around Paris with a guy that had police protection 24 hours a day. We spent time with a member of parliament over in Denmark who is under police guard because he is a member of parliament. The Islamists do not want their own to participate in democracy.

And, by the way, a very important thing that you mentioned. They will call people like Zuhdi not real Muslims, because he believes in a Western way of life, because he believes in democracy and separation of church and state.

And, by the way, that`s exactly what PBS is doing to them. They sort of have told us, in so many words, that people like Zuhdi have become Westernized so they can`t really be Muslims. This small group -- and I want to emphasize, it`s a small group within WETA and PBS -- have decided they speak for the Muslims.

BECK: OK. Let me ask you this, because there was -- when we did "The Extremist Agenda," I mean, I`m not kidding you, people were on the phone trying to get the special pulled all the way until it aired. There are people who vehemently disagree. Do you believe it was out of fear or these people just say, "It`s not that big of a problem"?

What`s their motivation for this, do you believe?

BURKE: I think there are two different reasons. One is, I committed the unforgivable sin in their eyes of being partnered with two conservatives, Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev. And shortly after they took over the series, they flew to Toronto, Canada, where I was for a while and met me and said, "Fire your partners."

I said, "Wait a minute. I did a film on the Hollywood 10, on blacklisting in Hollywood, and I am not about to fire my partners for their political beliefs." And they uttered a statement that I never thought I would hear in America. They said, "Don`t you check into the political beliefs of the people you work with?"

BECK: Oh, my gosh.

BURKE: For the record, I just want to say, I couldn`t have cared less about the politics of the people we put on the air in this show, or I say on the air advisedly, because I have socialists, I have people who are conservatives on the air. It did not matter what their politics were.

BECK: OK.

BURKE: They were the moderate Muslims who had a right to speak out.

BECK: Martyn, Zuhdi, I would love to spend more time on this subject. I`d like to invite you to the radio program tomorrow. Let`s try to work that out, and thanks.

That is "The Real Story" tonight. If you`d like to read more about this or if you`ve found a real story of your own, please tell us about it. Go to glennbeck.com and click on "The Real Story" button. Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: When it comes to Rosie, I don`t ever want to see her fired. I just want to see that there is some sort of balance to "The View." I`ve actually seen her say to you, "If you`ve got a question, ask a question. We`re not here for your opinions, Elizabeth."

ELISABETH HASSELBECK, "VIEW" CO-HOST: And I responded right after that I did ask a question, then you interrupted me. I have no problem in the moment countering something that she says. Is her voice louder than mine?

ROSIE O`DONNELL, HOST, "THE VIEW": No, it`s that fat lesbian.

HASSELBECK: Yes, it`s louder, but it doesn`t mean that what I`m saying is any less important or less forceful. Everyone in any job, in any situation, is going to have moments where they have pure human just mistake. You know, it happens. You say something, you don`t mean it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: All right. Imagine that you are an editor-in-chief of a popular magazine, one that had been around forever, and suddenly you`re told that the magazine is changing direction, oh, yes, and Rosie O`Donnell is now going to be the new face of that magazine, and she also needs your office.

Sally Koslow lived that nightmare and wrote about it, kind of, not really. Her new novel is "Little Pink Slips." It`s a fictionalized tale inspired by real events, blow-by-blow account of what happens when a magazine is taken over by a larger-than-life celebrity, but definitely not Rosie O`Donnell, right, Sally?

SALLY KOSLOW, AUTHOR, "LITTLE PINK SLIPS": That`s true. It`s definitely not Rosie. It`s Bebe Blake.

BECK: And she`s a celebrity, that you think maybe she might be a lesbian, but you`re not really sure.

KOSLOW: No, no, she`s definitely not. She`s a nymphomaniac, Bebe.

BECK: Really? OK. All right, so now you were the editor of "McCall`s". And on a Friday, they came in and said, "Hey, by the way, Rosie is going to need your office." What was that like?

KOSLOW: Well, it didn`t exactly happen that quickly, but there was a Friday when I was in that office. And I moved upstairs, kind of kicked to the curb, if you were, and Rosie moved in on Monday. And, no, it wasn`t a happy moment in my life, to be honest.

BECK: What is she like? Because I imagine your book is kind of like "The Devil Wears Prada," which is a fictionalized account of somebody else that runs a magazine, but it is kind of loosely based on one person. What from the book is real or not real? Or what was working with Rosie like?

KOSLOW: Well, I want to make it clear, I did not work with Rosie. I was kicked upstairs on account of Rosie taking over "McCall`s." I was given a different job. My book goes inside baseball with all sorts of real-life details of what it`s like to be in a magazine.

BECK: Right now, there`s a little attorney in your head, isn`t there? There`s a little...

KOSLOW: I`m trying to describe -- Glenn, I want to describe "Little Pink Slips" accurately to you.

BECK: Right.

KOSLOW: And "Little Pink Slips," first of all, I wrote a book to be entertaining.

BECK: Sure.

KOSLOW: That was my first goal.

BECK: OK.

KOSLOW: My second goal, if people want to draw comparisons to, you know, people, they can have a lot of fun doing that.

BECK: And there was no poison pen in there, like, "You evil witch." There was none of that when you wrote this book?

KOSLOW: I wrote this book several years after it all happened.

BECK: All right.

KOSLOW: So I had already moved on to another job.

BECK: Good for you. So McCall`s, how long had you been with "McCall`s?"

KOSLOW: "McCall`s" was an iconic American magazine, 124 years old at the time that it turned into "Rosie." I had been the editor-in-chief for eight years.

BECK: And the Rosie thing, kind of a colossal disaster.

KOSLOW: Well, I think the record speaks for itself. It was not a magazine that had a long life, this is true. It did not last 124 years.

BECK: Can you at all comment on how -- see, here`s what`s really confusing. Rosie was the queen of nice. She was, you know, this nice, you know, whatever. And then all of a sudden it just went horribly wrong, to where she`s really perceived by many -- I mean, I`ll just speak for me -- as kind of nasty. When did that happen? Was she fake then, or is she fake now? Did something happen? What?

KOSLOW: Well, I think that people forget that, before she was the queen of nice, she was a stand-up comic and widely -- she had a very acerbic routine. And then she, on her program, was dubbed the queen of nice. I don`t think she dubbed herself the queen of nice; I think that`s one of the news magazines that did that.

BECK: No, but she was perceived that way, and you can`t say that she would be perceived that way if she was doing what she`s doing on "The View" now. We lost you.

KOSLOW: I`m losing my sound.

BECK: It`s the attorney in the head. Pull your ear piece out, and just I don`t know what -- I swear, your honor, I didn`t even hear the question.

KOSLOW: I can`t hear anything. It fell out of my ear.

BECK: Don`t worry, we`re just a few minutes away from Nancy.

KOSLOW: I`m sorry, I couldn`t hear you for a minute.

BECK: That`s OK.

KOSLOW: Oh, we were talking about the queen of nice.

BECK: Oh, yes.

KOSLOW: Before Rosie went on television with her own program, she was a stand-up comedy who was very edgy.

BECK: Yes, but, look, you watch her old show, and she was generally nice. I mean, she didn`t name herself the queen of nice. That`s what America named her.

KOSLOW: Exactly.

BECK: She was the queen of nice. But now you can`t say that the queen of nice is the same person on "The View."

KOSLOW: Queen of -- well, on "The View," I have to say, I respect her because she`s very outspoken and she`s consistent. And "The View" is a format to express different viewpoints. You know, and I was not writing a book about Rosie O`Donnell.

BECK: Right.

KOSLOW: "Little Pink Slips" is a fictional account of the magazine industry that takes you in there and takes you for a big roller coaster ride.

BECK: Right. I rest my case, your honor. It is definitely -- I said it on national TV, it`s not about Rosie O`Donnell. It`s not, and I believe you. Sally, thank you very much.

KOSLOW: Thank you.

BECK: Back in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, with all the comments people are making on the radio, I have been flooded with e-mails from listeners and viewers telling me to expose the hypocrisy of unbiased journalist Keith Olbermann on the Imus issue. Apparently, back in November, during the controversy over O.J. Simpson`s book and the interview that FOX Television was going to air, Olbermann was railing against Bill O`Reilly, saying he should be criticizing his own network, FOX.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEITH OLBERMANN, MSNBC ANCHOR: If you are going to take such a "I`m right and the whole rest of the world is wrong" approach to everything, and especially broadcasting, you really do find yourself in a position of it being incumbent upon you to take your own network to the same degree of task, you must say, "Listen, there should be a boycott. You shouldn`t watch it. And the network should be thoroughly boycotted, and it`s shameful," so obviously the opportunity was there. Bill just chose not to do it, which doesn`t say very much for his manhood.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Wow, questioning his manhood. You must really feel strongly about it, huh? However, Monday, host Dan Patrick asked him this question about Imus, host of a show on Olbermann`s network, MSNBC.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN PATRICK, ESPN HOST: If he was on FOX and this aired on FOX instead of MSNBC, you`d be killing him.

OLBERMANN: Yes.

PATRICK: Yes, OK.

OLBERMANN: There`s no doubt about it. I`m constrained by a large degree to the fact that I work at the same place. You don`t, as a rule -- even though this rule has never applied to him -- we try to avoid shooting people on our side of the fence, whether we like them or we don`t. That`s just a reality. They do it at FOX. They do it at CNN. They do it at PBS. We do it here. You try to avoid shooting them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I`m just trying to think, maybe I should be questioning Keith`s manhood. Apparently, last night, Olbermann said that he was avoiding comment because his friends in management have asked him to do so.

Honestly, if you can`t, you know, or if you don`t want to comment, that`s cool, Keith, it`s fine. Everybody has a boss. You`ve got to walk the line, you know, on your job, doing your job and keeping your job. I get it, but don`t wreck other people for something and then adopt and admit to the exact same practice yourself.

By the way, beyond the hypocrisy, the complete nonpartisan Olbermann, he didn`t even turn out to be correct. O`Reilly was all over that story hammering his own network for the O.J. book. So I think tonight we have to give out our very own "Worst Person in the Galaxy" award.

Yes, yes, I think you know who it`s going to be tonight. Of course, it`s Dennis "BTK" Rader. I mean, the guy killed all those people. Who did you think it was going to be? On this program, we have perspective.

Tomorrow on the radio program, Rudy Giuliani. We`ll see you back here with Dog the Bounty Hunter tomorrow night. Good night.

END

Search
© 2007 Cable News Network.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. Site Map.
Offsite Icon External sites open in new window; not endorsed by CNN.com
Pipeline Icon Pay service with live and archived video. Learn more
Radio News Icon Download audio news  |  RSS Feed Add RSS headlines