entering a post-Beck era?

Whatever you think of his politics, most would agree that Glenn Beck is a newsman who prefers provoking emotions to objectively reporting the facts.

So for advocates of sensible journalism, it comes as good news that Beck's audience is on the wane - down to 1.8 million nightly viewers from his peak of 2.8 million.

But where have those viewers gone? No one knows, but there are a few possibilities.

1) They've tuned out - permanently. In the rosiest scenario, Beck viewers grew tired of conspiracy theories and fear-mongering - perhaps realizing that the United States was not, in fact, collapsing under socialism - and opted to spend more of their precious free time, if not reading The Economist, than at least watching more Family Guy reruns.

2) They've tuned out - for the time being. More likely Beck's viewers haven't had an awakening and now see Beck for the provocateur he is, but - now that Republicans and Tea Party have made gains in public office - they just don't feel the need to go to Beck for reassurance. Voices on the extreme tend to get more notice when their followers are freaked out. The lefty blogosphere lost a lot of its steam once Obama got in office; reassured that libertarians and born-again Christians were not going to take over America, liberals could put politics, and political blogs, to the side and get back to their day jobs. After the congressional elections in November, Beck viewers may be similarly mollified, to the dismay of Beck's advertisers.

3) They've gone to more vitriolic pastures. Most worrisome, it could be that Beck viewers haven't gone on permanent or temporary hiatus - but they've found pundits who stoke their fears even more. Even the most fantastical conspiracies can seem humdrum after you've heard them enough. Could it be that Beck listeners started to get bored with his rants, finding them too conventional and safe - and they're now listening to some guy that makes Beck seem positively Cronkite-ian?

Again, there's no way to tell which of the three scenarios is the truth.

Option #1 would be nice if it were true, but it goes against everything that is known about human nature. People rarely change their habits and their opinions; the idea that 1 million people came to realization that Beck is incredulous is hard to believe itself. Humans, sadly, more often move farther to the extremes than tack back to the center, especially when we surround ourselves with people who think like we do - so #3 is probably closer to the truth.

But I'll put most of my money on option #2. Supporting evidence is that, of the drop in followers, the steepest decline came among 25-54 year olds - that is, those who are more likely to have jobs, social lives and other interests calling them away from Beck-watching. With other demands on their time, this set would only be drawn to Beck at times of high political urgency (ie when the Democrats have full control of Congress and the White House), and would likewise chill off from Glenn when politics felt less dire. The best thing that could happen to Glenn would be a resounding victory for the Dems in 2012. (As a Democrat myself, I must admit I hope he gets that lucky.)