We can easily add Beck's POV (perhaps quoting the link I'm reading now that you added to the talk page), but I disagree with your other assertions.  In fact I think the article as a whole gives too much credence to the minority viewpoint that Beck is a swell and stable commentator.   The introduction, for example , is one of the worst I've read on Wikipedia and it gives absolutely no indication of who this person is and what kind of controversy surrounds him. It appears that, judging by the talk page comments, a small number of editors are enforcing this minority viewpoint on the article through persistence.  But I am new to the page, as you know, and this is just my initial impression, so feel free to educate me or otherwise disagree.