Glen Beck actually wrote a piece after the meeting saying he took Mark at his word, and complained about the tenor of the other conservatives in the meeting: http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/05/19/what-disturbed-glenn-abo...

> But until then, based on our research and my personal experience with Facebook, I believe they are acting in good faith and share some very deep, fundamental principles with people who believe in the principles of liberty and freedom of speech.

I was quite surprised at the very reasonable position Glen Beck took. Very interesting.

There are accusations that he's sucking up to Facebook for more exposure to save his failing web enterprises. I don't know enough to say which is which, but there's almost always another side to the story.

Whatever else he is, he is intelligent and cynical.

The fact that he went to the meeting suggests that he had some questions about bias in media.

Facebook invited a group of who they considered "leading conservatives" to Facebook to discuss this personally after the allegations came out. Glen was on that list. I don't think many people would have turned down that invitation, whether or not you had concerns beforehand.

That meeting featured the leading right-wing clowns. The sad thing is that they are the most popular "conservative" pundits.

Facebook could do better to engage with less shrill demagogues on all side of political spectra, instead of promoting clowns.

(Note: a clown is a smart person who plays for a dumb audience.)

Look, I used to really like Glenn Beck, his conspiratorial tendencies for the past 8 years or so have driven me nuts. However, he is completely open about where he comes from, he is biased and admits it. He doesn't claim to be some neutral arbiter or a journalist.

The problem arises when people claiming to be journalists, or neutral (NYT, facebook) change stories based on their own biases without stating what they really are. NYT Opinion, or editorial board, sure, fine, have biases. But the front page should not be biased, neither should facebook.

I want journalists in the vein of Tim Russert, Chris Wallace or Lisa Ling. If they have biases they certainly conceal them extremely well. Chris Wallace is not afraid to ask hard questions of politicians, especially of conservatives, despite being on Fox News. Lisa Ling is amazing too, she may not ask tough questions per se, but watching her be so unbiased/open with people like drug dealers, polygamous families or pedophiles is rather impressive. She is legitimately trying to see the world through her subjects eyes, as revolting as that may be for 80-99% of the population.

I don't really follow this closely but did FB ever indicate to be unbiased?

This is a big deal because "the system" has shown a lot of hate toward things that oppose it. Even Stephen Colbert (our would-be go-to celebrity) has clearly aligned with the propaganda. The system is about to have themselves voted against and so now it will align with the new power.