GMAC Financial Services has "ceased advertising on the Glenn Beck program"
August 17, 2009 11:55 am ET by Eric Boehlert
That's the word this morning from spokesperson Sue Mallino, who confirmed to Media Matters that the company recently pulled its ads off the Fox News program. Mallino would not comment on whether the move was made in response to Beck's claim that President Obama is a "racist," an allegation that sparked a grassroots campaign by ColorofChange.org to get advertisers to stop supporting Beck's program.
Mallino said only that the company has final say over which programs are "not appropriate" to advertise on, and that GMAC Financial Services will continue to advertise on Fox News. But she reiterated the company "has ceased advertising on the Glenn Beck program."
GMAC Financial Services joins a growing list of advertisers who have recently abandoned Beck's television show, including ConAgra, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, RadioShack, Men’s Wearhouse, State Farm Sargento, LexisNexis-owned Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, and Progressive Insurance.
...Next?
Yes, indeed, it would be appropriate.
Please, we are the US of the A. Freedom of speech -- I refer you to the constitution.
But in any event, we all are free to speak and do as we please. If GMAC decides to pull advertising from Beck's show, they don't need a reason, since they are as free as he is to say what they want.
Get it?
Uh, yes they are. Legally they are regarded as people. Ever heard of "corporate lawsuits"?
"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech."
So, um, when you wail about CNN and MSNBC and freedom of speech, what does that have to do with the government restricting free speech? Because it seems like you don't understand the First Amendment very well.
Secondly, the first amendment is written to tell the government what it cannot do, not private parties, businesses or organisations.
You will notice that the amendment begins by telling the Congress that it "will make no law". The amendment is designed to protect citizens from intrusive government. That is all.
I am continually amazed at the ways people will mis-use or mis-apply the Bill of Rights
as a matter of discourse.
As far as freedom of speech or opinion goes, if a person claims that the sun revolves around the earth, is that an opinion or just ignorance of the facts? Is it free speech to spread falsehoods, like "death panels"? I'm sure you are familiar with Oliver Wendall Holmes' famous quotation about falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
This might be a useful site for you:
www.factcheck.org
OMG! Talking points are useless! You're referring me to the wrong document! How dumb are you!?
So, yes, your employer can fire you, if he or she doesn't like what you say. Generally, you do not have a right to freedom of speech at your private employment.
So, aside from contractual obligations, Rupert Murdoch can fire Glen Beck, and advertisers can stop advertising on his program, if they do not like what Glen is saying.
I will refer YOU to the Constitution; specifically, the First Amendment which says NOTHING about advertisers withdrawing support of someone with whom they disagree.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
No one is asking for the Congress to make a law preventing Glenn Beck from spewing his hatred and lies. Next time, before you invoke the First Amendment and its provisions, you might want to actually READ it.
I sure don't remember any conservatives being up in arms when Phil Donohue was fired. That was just a business decision and their right to do as they pleased. And that's without any real controversy at hand, anyway.
Most ads are contracted to Fox as a whole, rather than specific shows, so while a company might (accurately) state that they no longer will advertise during Mr. Beck's show, they are still supporting a station that encourages lies, half truths, and propaganda.
Until these advertisers pull their ads from FOX, they will see no money from me.
I don't care who does/doesn't advertise on Beck because I don't watch...but these efforts won't have any more effect than O'Reilly's boycott of France.
Ratings don't matter if you're not bringing in money to justify that FoxNews is paying you.
Show me any evidence that Beck is not bringing in revenue to replace lost advertising.
Until then...your response is knee-jerk happiness...supported by no facts...just dreams.
In short, it's your statements that were "just dreams" and "supported by no facts."
To be fair, his frequent use of ellipses makes it seem like he's half conscious.
When you're paying your guy, what is it? 30 million per year? It's already pretty hard to cover his salary with advertising on a cable news TV station that doesn't bring in a large viewership to start with. I'm willing to bet, that Beck's salary already outstrips the revenue being brought in due to advertising being shown on his show.
Again, I don't have these numbers, and I'm certain we can't get them, but something tells me, there is a reason Newscorp lost billions (or was it high millions?) of dollars last year.
Newscorp reported a large write-down on their MySpace fiasco...which has nothing to do with their cable revenue.
From the LATimes:
-- The lone bright spot for News Corp. was once again its cable channels, led by Fox News Channel, which has seen ratings grow and is benefiting from an increase in fees paid by cable and satellite operators. Operating income for News Corp.'s cable unit, which also includes FX and international channels, rose 39% to $434 million. --
I don't begrudge your unbridled happiness at the "supposed" bad news for Beck...his success or failure matters little to me...so I'll be gentle.
You don't have any idea about the financial consequences of these advertisers pulling their ads...you're just with the pompom squad of liberal cheerleaders hoping for the demise of Beck...and that's ok with me.
After all, that's why this is called a "comments" section...not a place to write a doctoral thesis.
The difference, of course, is that no one stopped buying anything French because of Bull O'Reilly. More than a baker's dozen of real (and large0 accounts have dropped Beck.
Keep whistling past the graveyard, wesley, that's what won't work. The advertisers fleeing Fox are costing them real money.
Advertisers want to have their products seen by the maximum amount of people and are willing to pay for the privilege.
But regardless of ratings, advertisers don't want their products linked with controversy.
He'll have no problem finding others to take their place, but I doubt that Enzyte pays as much as GEICO or GMAC.
Here's an article from Sheldon Drobny at Huffpo on the economics of cable television. It's a little dated but offers some insight:
-- Free TV depends exclusively on advertising as its source of revenue. On the other hand, most of the revenue for cable/satellite channels comes from the subscribers. Although advertising is a good source of revenue for cable/satellite, it is not the most important source. --
but good job GMACFS
The reason our country is vibrant is precisely because we can advocate for whatever we choose, or is that only if you are PC in you're thinking?
You are all attacking one of the very foundations that makes our country great. I'm sure you can't see that though.
First Beck and then Fox News will be taken down. After that we can start taking on MSNBC and the rest. Think about it, it's a slippery slope.
You will be subject to lawsuits or advertisers pulling out or whatever as a consequence of your free speech.
Awaiting your link of proof
If Olbermann says something to warrant termination, then he should be fired. He has no protected right to employment. Freedom of speech does not mean you're immune from consequences from private entities.
Of course that's the right idea. We should all stop watching it. And maybe, if it's important to us, we should try to convince others not to watch either. We should have a mass of people who refuse to watch it- a boycott, if you will. But you guys would say that's a violation of free speech too, wouldn't you?
Also, this has nothing to do with free speech, if that's where you are going. No one is suggestion that Congress or the government go after Beck. This is about a business decision. If advertisers don't want to advertise because they are getting feedback that there is offensive content on a show . . . that's their decision.
If Olbermann did the same, I would expect people to go after his advertisers also, but that's not happening any time soon because I've never seen anybody who's gone out and killed cops citing something they've heard on Olbermann . . . I have seen cops killed by someone citing Beck.
http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/feature/stop-supporting-hate-speech/
beck goes on the air and lies
here is the you tube of a totally made up story by beck with the snopes correction
how can fox allow him to go on the air and lie.
this should be sent to all fox executives and ask is beck has a license to make stuff up and call it news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWs12ccbOiE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAOBlqUqUZ8&feature=related
http://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/clunkers.asp
we need to all buy 1 share of fox go to the share holders meeting and protest
BTW, I bet you just LOVE Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol, don't you? You are aware that these folks are card carrying adherents to the neo-conservative philosophy of which Bill's daddy, Irving, is considered to be the "Godfather." Do a little research on Neo-Conservatism [fka Neo-Liberalism]. Neo-conservatism has it's roots in the teachings of Leo Trotsky, the famous MARXIST. The majority of Bush's first administration was littered with neo-conservatives . . . Trotskyite MARXISTS. Learn a little about political philosophy before you start trotting it out to attack someone. Just repeating what you heard on Fox isn't cutting it.
There are more of us out there who support Glenn than VAN JONES the Communist Green Czar who is behind this attempt to shut up the truth. He and his minions are attacking Beck for telling the truth. http://www.capitalresearch.org/blog/2009/08/12/communist-green-jobs-czars-group-takes-aim-at-tvs-glenn-beck/
Glenn Beck has a lot of supporters who admire him for telling us the truth about this government. We are growing every day!
AUGUST 4th Nielsen Ratings:
5PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Glenn Beck– 2,350,000 viewers (535,000) (970,000)
Situation Room—997,000 viewers (310,000) (459,000)
Hardball w/ Chris Matthews—498,000 viewers (153,000) (263,000)
Fast Money—224,000 viewers (a scratch w/ 36,000) (79,000)
Prime News–326,000 viewers (94,000) (154,000)
P2+ = viewers over the age of 2
(25-54) = Adults 25-54 viewing
(35-64) = Adults 35-64 viewing
They're looking to be represented as the company that prefers the business of angry, poorly educated, people, with little or no critical thinking skills.
They'd rather have twenty percent or less of the voting public as their market rather than selling to all Americans.
Only those afraid of "death panels" and those who won't believe that the president was born in America are who they're interested in reaching.
They also agree with people like Beck, Limbaugh, etc. who would have preferred the American auto industry just dried up and disappeared rather than receive any assistance form the government.
Let me guess you were against GM before you were for them?
Did I get that right?
Since ratings are so important I thought you'd be interested.
I want my money to work for the common good and it is hard for that to occur, if the hate mongers rule the airwaves. I see nothing constructive about these men and their bad attitudes. So, all I can say, is "begone" and take you nasty attitude with you.
His viewers are the ones that slow down at an accident scene, hoping to see something gruesome.
He manages to throw in a few actual facts to make what he is beddling factual to those wanting to rationalize their biogetries and racial profiling.
He is an ignorant, stupid man. WHY is he on TV, or anywhere for that matter. He suffers from high self esteem. His mouth is a running hole of hatred, confusion, and idiotic statements.
It's long a time coming, but advertisers are finally realizing the almight dollar has to come second place to common decency.
It's time these advertisers wake up and understand that the people spoke last November....Next????
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Sponsors should not just pull off of Beck show, should drop Fox altogether!!!! I don't mind different opinions, but lies go to far. Fox News certainly helps to build the fires of craziness across our country with their lies.
What makes it intriguing is that MarketWatch is owned by Dow Jones, which owns the Wall St Journal and is itself owned by …Rupert Murdoch.
There are more new wingnuts on this one thread than I've seen in years.
I see, like their leader, they like to cry a lot and call everyone else a commie, a socialist or a marxist.
While they and their Chickenhawk leaders are our "Great Americans".
You lost now get over yourselves.