About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Time plays dumb about Glenn Beck ad boycott

September 17, 2009 12:56 pm ET by Eric Boehlert

The mag sets aside 3,600 words for a Beck profile this week. Here's the lone mention of the sweeping and shockingly successful ad boycott campaign that has cost Glenn Beck more than 60 advertisers this summer:

A liberal group called Color of Change has organized an advertiser boycott of Beck's TV show — great publicity for the group and a boon to Beck's ratings.

Like so many in the mainstream press, Time can't be bothered to detail whether the ad boycott is, y'know, working. At Time, it simply exists. The fact that it's perhaps the most effective ad boycott in modern TV history, or that it is reportedly costing Fox News $600,000 each week in lost revenues, is no interest to Time reporters.

Instead, they spin the boycott as a success...for Beck. i.e. It helped spike his ratings!

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Victor Colorado (September 17, 2009 1:00 pm ET)
      2  
      This is SUCH BS! It's Beck's calling President a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred for white people" that has helped is ratings, not the boycott. Now that he's proven to the nation that his charge is bogus, it has become clear that he only made the claim in order to profit from it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (September 17, 2009 1:03 pm ET)
      1  
      As much as I want Beck relegated to being the paranoid, street-corner idiot that he is, I won't consider the boycott a success until his show is canceled. Even if the $660k-per-week loss is real, it's a minuscule victory against a very well financed media behemoth.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pros2pros2940 (September 17, 2009 1:26 pm ET)
         
      Your liberal media...........cowards
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (September 17, 2009 2:24 pm ET)
         
      -- it is reportedly costing Fox News $600,000 each week in lost revenues -- Boehlert

      If I've missed it...anyone of you feel free to enlighten me...but so far no one has verified the CoC claim of the $600k loss in advertising dollars.

      Until they reveal more about their claim than "data analyzed from industry sources" they are no more credible than those claiming 2 million protesters at the Tea Party.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 17, 2009 2:33 pm ET)
           
        You are correct, sir.

        Does this mean you don't buy the 2-Mil protesters either?

        -----------------------------------------------------------------------
        ;)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wesley (September 17, 2009 2:41 pm ET)
          2  
          I didn't...don't...and won't believe that piece of silliness.

          And I'm not proud of the conservatives spouting that type of ignorance.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 17, 2009 3:20 pm ET)
               
            It's a rare day indeed. Me and Wesley agree 100% on something, and I couldn't disagree with Fairliberal on something else.

            --------------------------------------------------------------
            LOL
            Report Abuse
            • Author by wesley (September 17, 2009 3:35 pm ET)
              1  
              Thanks for the link to your site...I was unaware that you had one.

              I look forward to giving it a good read...through my ever present conservative squint.

              And I'm also a big baseball fan...go Cardinals!

              Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 17, 2009 3:50 pm ET)
                   
                You and George Will! But Politics always goes by the wayside when talkin' Baseball! LOL.

                Go Red Sox!
                Go Tigers!

                (Sorry - not much of a Cards' fan (2004? 2006?) am I? LOL)
                --------------------------------------------------------
                Thanks for stopping by!
                Report Abuse
              • Author by overmars jr. (September 17, 2009 4:03 pm ET)
                   
                go Cardinals!


                I knew there had to be something exemplary about you, despite all the differences. :D
                Report Abuse
        • Author by Shoto (September 19, 2009 3:39 pm ET)
             
          Wait a minute. I'm pretty sure the number of protesters was One Trillion. Glenn Beck actually took a head count. Well..the voices in his head helped, but still...

          Just like that damn liberal media to understate the number...
          Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (September 17, 2009 2:35 pm ET)
           
        I agree, Wes.

        Boehlert: "The fact that it's perhaps the most effective ad boycott in modern TV history, or that it is reportedly costing Fox News $600,000 each week in lost revenues, is no interest to Time reporters. "

        No interest? Boehlert can't be certain about this. Maybe, just maybe, Time did hear of CoC's claim, but were unable to independently confirm it. In which case, it would be that Journalism 101 that we're all constantly clamoring for more of.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wesley (September 17, 2009 2:46 pm ET)
             
          -- Maybe, just maybe, Time did hear of CoC's claim, but were unable to independently confirm it. -- pete

          Good point...

          Maybe Boehlert can do some research and let us know...instead of just repeating an unverified report...kinda like all those that willingly repeated the 2 million protesters number...without verification.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Victor Colorado (September 17, 2009 2:56 pm ET)
               
            The $s are one thing, but it remains clear that the number of companies that refuse to advertise of Beck's TV show is of no interest to Time reporters. Perhaps the number "62" would have cost them too much in space and ink.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Dem02020 (September 17, 2009 3:31 pm ET)
                 
              And of equal or greater importance than the numbers of sponsors glenn beck's Fox News Channel program has lost, is the names of those sponsors who remain.

              And even the names of glenn beck's sponsors are not important (to me anyway) as targets of protests or letters or complaints or whatever, as they are important names of corporations I will not to do business with.

              Example: I see that the company named 'Zero Technologies' remains a sponsor of beck's Fox show, and I know what they make (ZeroWater 'tap water filtration devices' I believe). Knowing this, I will never buy any product of theirs, and upon any mention of 'tap water filtration' in conversation, I'll make sure to note that buying a 'ZeroWater' product is the same as giving money to glenn beck (the same as sponsoring him, as 'Zero Technologies' does).

              That's what a Boycott is, and that's all it really is, and it's powerful and effective and everybody should know just who they're giving their money too, and if it's glenn beck (by way of 'Zero Technologies'), then they should know that too.

              The absolute best thing about the County Fair items that appear on this issue, are the items that simply list who's sponsoring glenn beck's Fox News Channel show.

              That's everything, that's all I really want to know... I know what to do next, once I know that.

              All this other talk, about how much money is being lost, and how anybody can truly know those dollar figures, it's all just a distraction to me... it has nothing to do with what I want to do, or even with why I want to do it.

              I want to keep my money from winding up in glenn beck's pocket, and so I want to know by way of what corporations my money might wind up there...

              Which is to say I want to know who sponsors glenn beck's Fox News Channel show, so I know not to do business with them.

              Simple.

              Now as for lou dobbs, let's start seeing a regular and timely listing of corporations that make him a very wealthy man as he opposes us political (more than opposes us, he hates and insults us)...

              Tell me the names of those corporations and/or products too.

              I know what to do next.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by tasinsc (September 17, 2009 2:36 pm ET)
           
        Wesley - I agree, facts matter. Below is a link to the calculation. Basically, they looked at what advertisers spent on Beck's program before and after the boycott caused 62 big-buck advertisers to leave.

        I'm independent, but I check facts, and the Democrats' figures are usually more believable. I'm not being partisan - that's just the way it rolls.

        http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909140031
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Elaine Anderson Gallagher (September 17, 2009 2:43 pm ET)
         
      I can not recall in my lifetime the press and television being represented by such negativity. Announcers show party affiliation by the news they promote where is the equality in that?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by trelan1701 (September 17, 2009 2:48 pm ET)
         
      $600k is alot of money, but is the show still profitable? I'm guessing, yes. The overhead simply can't be that high aside from Beck's salary. As long as the show is making money, ANY money, they'll leave it on the air.

      Fox DOES cancel shows that do not produce even if that show is directly in line with their spin campaign (such as the Daily Show rip-off that bombed). So there's hope that the continued (and expanding) boycott will eventually remove this babbling head from TV.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (September 17, 2009 3:02 pm ET)
         
      The word 'Boycott' is so threatening to any corporation, that I'm surprised it was mentioned at all in the magazine article, published by the world's largest media corporation Time Warner.

      I guess the article is some kind of defense of glenn beck (I can only guess that's what it is, but in truth I don't really care and so won't be reading that article or anything else Time Warner publishes now or ever again), but if it were more than just a defense of glenn beck, and were a defense against a 'boycott' (advertiser boycott or whatever), then I'd believe that... that makes sense.

      Boycotts are that scary to business folks, whatever their business.

      Boycotts strike at their very heart, by threatening the circulation of their blood, which is money of course.

      And so if one of their (Time Warner's) blood media brothers (glenn beck) is threatened by any kind of 'Boycott', then sure, they all close ranks in defense, because again, the thing called a 'Boycott' is that serious a threat (and again I'm surprised it got any mention at all in Time Warner's magazine).

      Hit them where they hurt the most, strike them right at their heart, stop their circulation (or stop contributing to it at least), keep every dollar of yours that might wind up in their (or beck's) pocket, keep your money from getting to them... that's their blood you know, money is.

      Boycott.

      I love the word, I love saying it out loud to these media people, because I know how much it scares them...

      The word 'Boycott' makes their blood run cold, and gives them a feeling like they're having a heart attack... good.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tlaw0703 (September 17, 2009 6:42 pm ET)
         
      Since TIME wants to look the other way regarding the truth, I propose that all subscribers to TIME "u-turn" the recent edition, send them back to TIME as a means of voicing our displeasure with them for putting this guy on their cover. When my copy comes, I plan on sending it right back to them, stamped, "return to sender".
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Moochie (September 18, 2009 2:14 pm ET)
         
      I don't know what people are so het up about. I think we all know what Beck is, and what the corporation that gives him a life is. I doubt that most folks consider him as anything more than a buffoon, and that News Corp. likes to make heaps of money and will play the game in the way that best serves that purpose. In other places and markets News Corp. is just as likely to back a very left-leaning horse as a right-leaning one, if that will make them the most money.

      It's all about the money for them. Always has been and always will be. And anyone who's thinking they're, like, the Messiah for conservatives doesn't know squat about economics or politics.

      If FNC's ratings were to take a nosedive tomorrow, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly et all would be forced into premature retirement -- a retirement they can easily afford, more than most folks can.

      Fox crows about it's ratings all the time, but folks shouldn't confuse ratings with popularity or even agreement. I watch FNC sometimes, although it's the last place I'd go to for any actual news. I just want to see how much rope they give the likes of Beck before he auto-erotically asphyxiates himself.
      Report Abuse