The Most Powerful News Story Glenn Ever Heard Was Six Words

June 12, 2017

WRITER

"Chicago O'Hare, Eastern Airlines, 111 dead."

That was the news from Paul Harvey on July 19, 1989. The master storyteller and radio host had a way with words that resonated among Americans --- including a younger Glenn Beck.

"He was way ahead of his time. Most powerful news story I ever heard, and one of the reasons why I wanted to get into radio: Orson Wells and Paul Harvey," Glenn said Monday on radio.

This followed a conversation about social media and its impact on the new way Americans consume news. Sharing a story from FiveThirtyEight, co-host Stu Burgiere recounted the author's recent three-month break from social media.

"They had a writer who had a book situation, so [she] had to go off social media for three months. And [she] wrote about, 'Hey, how did this affect my opinion of the news cycle?'" Stu explained.

Christie Aschwanden, the author, came to a realization:

It dawned on me that I’d mostly stopped visiting websites directly and instead had been following the recommendations in my feeds to wherever they might lead me. My reading was no longer deliberate but curated by external forces that may or may not have aligned with my interests. I’d ceded control of my most valuable currency: my attention.

That trend --- having news pushed to us by an outside algorithm rather than seeking out sources independently --- has dramatically changed the way we consume news.

"Unbelievable, that's the way most people do it," Glenn said.

"Totally, you just get led down these roads, and you're not necessarily even reading what's most interesting to you or what's most important to you," Stu agreed.

Regarding the Paul Harvey story, Glenn had this to say:

"I knew everything that I needed to know. That's really kind of what America wants right now. They just want that, plus they want a confirmation of their opinion. Tell me my opinion is right," he said.

Aschwanden found exactly that to be true:

What became acutely obvious when I stopped taking their recommendations was how tribal online discussions can be. So many posts in my feeds were people broadcasting their political or professional identities by expressing outrage or praise for a particular news event or article. It seems to me that these kinds of posts aren’t so much about instigating thoughtful discourse as they are about broadcasting your own tastes or positioning yourself on a team. By opting out, I wasn’t missing thoughtful discussions, I was skipping pep rallies for various factions.

"It's because we've lost the American tribe. We've broken into political party tribes because we don't have a common story that threads us together anymore," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you for listening to the Glenn Beck Program. We are back off from vacation. What did we bring back?

STU: One interesting little I saw from FiveThirtyEight.com. They had a writer who had a book situation. So they had to go off social media for three months. And they wrote about, hey, how did this affect my opinion of the news cycle? Like, they went through all these big events not being connected to social media. And here's part of it: It dawned on me that I mostly stopped visiting websites directly and instead had been following the recommendations in my feeds to wherever they might lead me. My reading was no longer deliberated, but curated by external forces that may or may not have aligned with my interests. I ceded control of my most valuable currency: My attention.

GLENN: Unbelievable. That's the way most people do it.

STU: Totally. You just get led down these things -- these roads, and you're not necessarily even reading what's most interesting to you or what's most important to you.

JEFFY: I mean, we all do that.

STU: Yeah, that's true.

GLENN: I think it's 80 percent of traffic now from most sites comes from what's called the side doors. So people aren't going to TheBlaze.com. Or the NewYorkTimes.com. They're getting it from their Facebook feed, and that leads them in from the side door. So they're only getting one story. And on that story, the average time is like 46 seconds or --

STU: Jeez. If it's that high, I would be stunned.

GLENN: Yeah. I keep wanting to say it's six seconds. But it can't be that. It's some extraordinarily low number. And it gives you time enough just to read the headlines and glance and move on. That's how people are getting their news now. And it's -- it's -- it's really kind of frightening.

STU: Yeah, I was listening to an interview about someone who was a writer -- like long form pieces. Like the magazine profile. Right? Those old school things that we don't really seem to have anymore, except for a few sources. And they were talking about how they would spend so much time writing that last paragraph. If you watch House of Cards, which I will not give anything away here, I promise. But the last few moments, as you would expect of the season, were amazing. And that's how articles used to be. That last paragraph was crafted -- it was perfectly worded. It lead you to that exact point.

GLENN: And it was referenced three times before in the article.

STU: Oh, yeah. It set you up.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And what they found is, now with the digital world is they realized, first of all, the first program is the only one that anyone reads. And it goes down to, the last paragraph is read by 6 percent of readers or 5 percent of readers. Something so low, that there's no rational reason to spend any time on the last paragraph. It should only be the first few paragraphs that you spend any time on, and the rest of it, just throw all the junk at the end. And that's not the way journalism used to be. It's not the way it was --

GLENN: Trying to write something smart in -- I mean, the only guy that I know that did it was Paul Harvey. Trying to write something smart in -- in one paragraph and really convey a message. The most powerful news story I've ever heard -- he was away ahead of his time. Most powerful news story ever heard and the reasonable why I wanted to -- one of the reasons why I wanted to get into radio: Orson Wells and Harvey. And I used to listen to them, eight years old, I would be washing the pots and pans in the bakery. And Paul Harvey would come on. And he would do his -- in the summer, his noon report. And the rest of the year, I would hear his 5 o'clock report. And he would give the news. And the most -- the most effective story I ever heard was Chicago O'Hare, Eastern Airlines, 232 dead. And that was it.

And the way he said it, I could -- I could almost smell the smoke. I mean, I knew everything that I needed to know. That's really kind of what America wants right now. They just want that, plus they want a confirmation of their opinion. Tell me my opinion is right.

STU: Yeah. And that's exactly what the author found. You know, what became acutely obvious was when he stopped taking the recommendations was how tribal online discussions can be. So many posts in my feeds were people broadcasting their political or professional identities by expressing outrage or praise for a particular news event or article.

You know, that is what it is. It winds up being --

GLENN: It's because we've lost the American tribe.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: We've broken into political party tribes. Because we don't have a common story that threads us together anymore.

Hunter pleads GUILTY, but did he get a pass on these 3 GLARING crimes?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Last week, Hunter Biden made the shocking decision to suddenly plead guilty to all nine charges of tax-related crimes after claiming innocence since 2018.

Hunter first tried an "Alford plead" in which a defendant maintains their innocence while accepting the sentencing, typically due to the overwhelming evidence against them. Hunter's Alford plead was not accepted after the prosecutors objected to the suggestion, and Hunter quickly pleaded guilty.

Glenn could not believe just how disrespectful this situation was to the justice system and the American people. After years of lying about his innocence, which only served to deepen the divide in our country, Hunter decided to change his tune at the last minute and admit his guilt. Moreover, many expect Joe Biden will swoop in after the election and bail his son out with a presidential pardon.

This isn't the first time Hunter's crimes have turned out to be more than just a "right-wing conspiracy theory," and, odds are, it won't be the last. Here are three crimes Hunter may or may not be guilty of:

Gun charges: Found guilty

This June, Hunter Biden was found guilty of three federal gun charges, which could possibly land him up to 25 years in prison. Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018 while addicted to crack, and lied to the gun dealer about his addiction. While Hunter could face up to 25 years in prison, it's unlikely to be the case as first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. That's assuming Joe even lets it go that far.

Tax evasion: Plead guilty

Last week, Hunter changed his plea to "guilty" after years of pleading innocent to federal tax evasion charges. Since 2018, Delaware attorneys have been working on Hunter's case, and just before the trial was set to begin, Hunter changed his plea. According to the investigation, Hunter owed upwards of $1.4 million in federal taxes that he avoided by writing them off as fraudulent business deductions. Instead, Hunter spent this money on strippers, escorts, luxury cars, hotels, and, undoubtedly, crack.

Joe's involvement with Hunter's foreign dealings: Yet to be proven

Despite repeated claims against it, there is ample evidence supporting the theory Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings and even had a hand in them. This includes testimony from Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, confirming Joe joined several business calls. Despite the mounting evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's overseas business dealings and was using his influence to Hunter's benefit, the Bidens still maintain their innocence.

Why do we know so much about the Georgia shooter but NOTHING about Trump's shooter?

Jessica McGowan / Stringer | Getty Images

It's only been a few days since the horrific shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, and the shooter, Colt Gray, and his father, Colin Gray, have already made their first court appearance. Over the last few days, more and more information has come out about the shooter and his family, including details of Colt's troubled childhood and history of mental health issues. The FBI said Colton had been on their radar.

This situation has Glenn fired up, asking, "Why do we have an FBI?" It seems like every time there is a mass shooting, the FBI unhelpfully admits the shooter was "on the radar," but what good does that do? While it is great we know everything about the Georgia shooter, including what he got for Christmas, why do we still know next to NOTHING about Trump's would-be assassin? Here are three things we know about the Georgia shooter that we stilldon't know about the Trump shooter:

Digital footprint

Just a few days after the shooting, authorities have already released many details of the Georgia shooter, Colt Gray's, digital footprint. This includes extensive conversations and photographs revolving around school shootings that were pulled from Gray's Discord account, a digital messaging platform.

Compared to this, the FBI claims Thomas Crooks, the shooter who almost assassinated Donald Trump, had little to no digital footprint, and outside of an ominous message sent by Crooks on Steam (an online video game platform), we know nothing about his online activities. Doesn't it seem strange that Crooks, a young adult in 2024 who owned a cell phone and a laptop left behind no digital trail of any relevance to his crime?

Home life

The FBI has painted a vivid image of what Colt Gray's home life was like, including his troubling relationship with his parents. They released information about his parents' tumultuous divorce, being evicted from his home, several interactions with law enforcement and CPS, and abuse. Investigators also found written documents of Colt's related to other school shootings, suggesting he had been thinking of this for some time before committing the atrocity.

In contrast, we still know next to nothing about Crooks's home life.

How he got the weapon

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Colt Gray was gifted the rifle he used in the shooting from his father for Christmas last year. We also know Colt's father is an avid hunter and would take Colt on hunting trips. In 2023, Colt was the subject of an investigation regarding a threat he made online to shoot up a school. During the interview, Colt stated he did not make the threat. Moreover, his father admitted to owning several firearms, but said Colt was not allowed full access to them. The investigation was later closed after the accusations could not be sustained.

In comparison, all we know is that Crooks stole his father's rifle and did not inform his parents of any part of his plan. We have no clue how Crooks acquired the rest of his equipment, which included nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and several homemade bombs. How did Crooks manage to acquire all of his equipment without the FBI taking notice?

It feels like the FBI is either incompetent or hiding important information from the American people. Or both.

Join Glenn TONIGHT for BlazeTV's exclusive debate coverage!

Bill Pugliano / Stringer, Grant Baldwin / Stringer | Getty Images

Join Glenn TONIGHT, September 10, at 8 p.m. Eastern, for his LIVE coverage of the ABC News Presidential Debate!

Don't rely on the mainstream media to spoon-feed you their spin on the debate. Dodge the censorship and decide for yourself! Join the BlazeTV livestream tonight to get the debate coverage America deserves: the pure, uncensored truth. Plus you'll get to be the first to see Glenn's LIVE reaction to the debate as it goes down!

If you become a BlazeTV+ subscriber today, you can gain access to the live chat with your favorite hosts, including Glenn, Stu, Liz Wheeler, and more as they share their thoughts on the debate. Go to BlazeTV.com/debate and get $40 off of your annual subscription with code DEBATE. This is the largest discount we’ve ever offered, so don’t miss out! See you TONIGHT at 8!

You do NOT want to miss it!

These ‘conservative’ Glenn Beck critics are now supporting Kamala Harris

Drew Angerer / Staff, NBC NewsWire / Contributor, NBC NewsWire / Contributor | Getty Images

There’s a certain irony in how some of the loudest critics of Glenn Beck within the conservative ranks have now thrown their support behind Kamala Harris, a figure whose politics stand in stark contrast to the values they once claimed to uphold. Let's take a look back at these self-proclaimed guardians of conservatism, who once claimed Glenn Beck was a threat to the conservative movement, but are now backing the most far-left, radical candidate the Democrats have ever produced.

Adam Kinzinger

Adam Kinzinger was elected in 2010 as a Tea Party conservative, riding the wave of anti-establishment sentiment that defined the movement. However, by 2013, he was already distancing himself from the principles that got him elected. Criticizing Glenn Beck for labeling him a RINO, Kinzinger said, "The perception is, if you do one thing out of line with what is considered hard-core conservatism, or what Glenn Beck says or what Mark Levin says, then you are a RINO." Now, he’s taken his political shift to the extreme, endorsing Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention and praising her as a defender of democracy—all while claiming to be a Republican and a conservative.

Bill Kristol

Bill Kristol’s flip-flop is even more astounding. Kristol, who once took it upon himself to attack Beck for his warnings about radical Islam and creeping authoritarianism, now finds himself on the same side as Kamala Harris. Kristol’s past criticisms of Beck, comparing him to fringe elements like the John Birch Society, now ring hollow as Kristol himself becomes an apologist for the far left. His endorsement of Harris shows that his commitment was never to conservatism but to whatever political winds would keep him in the spotlight.

Jennifer Rubin

Jennifer Rubin is a prime example of how establishment figures at outlets like The Washington Post have masqueraded as conservatives while working to undermine genuine conservative voices. Rubin, who once criticized Beck by saying, "Rather than reflexively rising to his defense when questioned about Beck, why don’t conservatives call him out and explain that he doesn’t represent the views of mainstream conservatives?" was never truly aligned with conservative values. Her columns have consistently pushed establishment narratives, and now they read like PR pieces for the Democratic Party, especially when it comes to Kamala Harris. Rubin’s journey from supposed conservative commentator to one of the Biden administration’s staunchest defenders shows that her critiques of Beck were always about protecting her place within the Washington elite, not about upholding any real conservative principles.

Kinzinger, Kristol, and Rubin once posed as guardians of conservatism, warning about the supposed dangers of Glenn Beck. Now, they’ve endorsed Kamala Harris, a candidate whose policies are anathema to conservatism. Their criticisms of Beck were never about protecting conservative values—they were about steering the party back under their control. But the real target wasn’t just Beck; it was the audience he represents—everyday conservatives who challenge the status quo. These insiders have always seen that base as the real threat, and their actions make it clear who they were really trying to sideline.

Glenn's Show Prep