More than five dozen advertisers. Incredibly, that's how many sponsors of Glenn Beck have gone on the record and announced they will no longer support his program. So why won't the press report that fact?
According to ColorofChange.org the number of fleeing advertisers has reached 62. As I've noted several times in recent weeks, I'm certain that with this astonishingly successful ad boycott we're watching television history unfold before our eyes. I can't recall any other television host, and not certainly one in modern times, that has managed to shed so many all-star, blue chip advertisers the way Beck has in the last month.
If ColorofChange had convinced six or seven corporate sponsors to walked away from Glenn Beck it would have been a big deal. But 62, and counting? It's unheard of. Period.
Question: If you were selling ad time on cable TV, would you rather build your show on the shoulders of Freije Treatment Systems, Mortgage relief hotline 1-888-336-5967, and IRSTaxAgreements.com, the way Glenn Beck is today? Or would you rather build your show around ad support from AT&T, Bank of America, and Best Buy, which is the way Glenn Beck used to be?
I thought so.
Glenn Beck has been utterly decimated from an advertising standpoint. It's practically the highest-rated show on cable news yet all of its big national advertisers are gone. All. Of. Them. It's gotten so bad, Glenn Beck is airing free ads from other Murdoch properties, such as the Wall Street Journal, just to fill up the inventory.
But boy, you sure wouldn't know any of that know from consuming the mainstream news media. Sure, there have been lots of mentions that a boycott exists. And especially after ColorofChange ally--and Glenn Beck target--Van Jones recently resigned his White House post, lots of news outlets noted the boycott. But how many news outlets have mentioned just how many advertisers have pulled their dollars from Glenn Beck? How many news outlets in recent days and weeks have detailed that more than three, then four, and now five dozen advertisers have jettisoned the program?
Pretty much zero.
At least I can't find any on Nexis/Lexis. The New York Times, for instance, hasn't touched the unfolding story since August 14, when the paper reported that Glenn Beck had lost "about a dozen" advertisers, a boycott tally the Times described back then as "unusually successful."
Well, since then the boycott tally has increased five times. Since then, advertising and media history have been made this summer, but the Times, whose newsroom normally obsesses over the intersection of politics and media, has remained dutifully mum on the still-unfolding story.
More than five dozen advertisers have walked away from Glenn Beck. But the press couldn't care less.
Wilson's hateful and unhinged outburst wasn't' really that bad, writes Parker, because members of Congress have always done rude things while presidents address Congress, like when Sen. John McCain was caught napping during one of Bush's speeches.
I'm not kidding. That's what Parker wrote.
Do false equivalencies come any more lame than that? Indeed they do, because Parker's just getting started. She also notes that Hillary Clinton once wore a nasty expression on her face when Bush spoke to Congress, which let's face it, is just like calling interrupting the President of the United States on national television and calling him a liar. (And, of course, lying about him being a liar.)
It gets even worse. Parker then goes back and simply reinvents history by claiming that Democrats were "booing and heckling Bush throughout his 2005 address."
Parker here is flat out lying here. Go watch the clip of Democrats allegedly "booing and heckling Bush" in 2005, which conservatives eagerly posting on the Internet yesterday. See for yourself what a joke it is to suggest the Democratic groans that arose when Bush was fear mongering about the state of Social Security, were the same as Wilson's clarion and unhinged "Your lie!" outburst.
And a personal challenge to Parker: Please substantiate your claim that the so-called "booing and heckling" of Bush in 2005 lasted throughout his 2005 address. Not even the factually-challenged right-wing blogosphere is making that preposterous claim.
UPDATED: Parker just plays massively dumb throughout the column [emphasis added]:
South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson seems to have set a precedent Wednesday night when he called the president a liar during a joint session of Congress. That's the official word from House deputy historian Fred Beuttler, who says that though cheering and jeering between parties are commonplace, a single individual seldom steals the floor.
Why the "seems"? Parker quotes a House historian who says nobody's done what Wilson did. But since her point is to pretend the "You lie!" was no big deal, Parker suggests it might have not been so novel.
First, it was Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank accusing a Democratic member of congress of making a "fascist salute" to Barack Obama in an effort to "balance" his criticism of unruly House Republicans. Now, Politico offers an even more absurd example of "both sides do it."
In an article about the Republican Party being overrun by nutty claims like Sarah Palin's false "Death Panels" allegations, the Birther nonsense, and conservatives claiming Barack Obama was going to "indoctrinate" schoolchildren, Politico drops in this doozy of a "to be sure" paragraph:
Nor are Democrats strangers to having their crazy uncles take center stage. During the run-up to the Iraq war, for example, Reps. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) and David Bonior (D-Mich.) famously flew to Baghdad, where McDermott asserted that he believed the president would "mislead the American public" to justify the war. The trip made it a cakewalk for critics to describe the Democratic Party as chock-a-block with traitorous radicals.
Got that? Saying George W. Bush would "mislead the American public" in order to justify the Iraq war is the stuff of "crazy uncles" who are easily described as "traitorous radicals." It's on par with accusing President Obama of wanting to create "Death Panels" to kill off the old and the young, and of having been born in Kenya. Except that, you know ... George W. Bush did mislead the country to justify the war. Other than that, they're virtually the same thing.
Oh, and Jim McDermott was as significant a figure in the Democratic Party as Sarah Palin is in the GOP. Right.
The fact that Beltway media like the Politico still think that it is a baseless, fringe position to say George Bush lied his way into Iraq speaks volumes.
More than 60 advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Here are his September 10 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
... could a newspaper think it's reasonable to give a Republican strategist column-space to write that in order to be "centrist," the Democratic president should let the Republicans govern.
Check out this Politico column by self-described "partisan Republican" John Feehery:
How can he revive his presidency, promote his agenda and save his reputation? Act like the Republicans have already taken control of Congress.
Why should Obama wait for the inevitable election disaster that will come as a result of his sharp moves to the left? Why can't he start governing from the center now, by acting as if the Republicans already control Congress?
Here are some things he can insist on as he negotiates with Congress that will help him govern like a centrist:
Insist that Republicans provide half the votes for every piece of big legislation....the president can promise to veto every bill that doesn't have at least half of the Republicans voting for it.
Veto all tax increases. Republicans don't do tax increases, and that keeps them out of trouble. The president should just assume that if the Republicans were in charge, they wouldn't give you a tax increase to sign. Follow their lead.
Hilarious. A Republican strategist wants the Democratic President to let the Republicans -- who control nothing, who the public holds in contempt, whose ideas have been roundly rejected in consecutive elections -- call the shots. And Politico thinks that makes for a column worth printing.
Oh, by the way: How does this even make sense?:
Reid, whose own political fortunes are very dicey in his home state of Nevada because of his own perceived lurch to the left, has thrown his lot in with the liberals and similarly turned his back on the center.
Reid is in trouble because he is seen as having lurched to the left, so he's ... Lurching to the left? This isn't analysis, it's spin. And not even good spin. Self-discrediting spin.
It seems Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank isn't happy that I pointed out the absurdity of his claim that Democratic congressman Al Green made a "fascist salute" to Barack Obama during last night's speech. From Milbank's online discussion today:
Media Matters: Hey Dana, you did it! Media Matters isn't happy with your false moral equivalance. WaPo's Milbank: Dem. Rep. Green made "fascist salute" to Obama (MediaMatters, Sept. 10)
Dana Milbank: Excellent! After just 3 minutes as a hack for Barack I am back to being a right-wing stooge.
It's too bad about Media Matters. I'm sure Mr. Brock et al have some good points to make, but because they attack everybody for everything all the time, it winds up discrediting the good stuff they do and make it appear that they are just making noise.
It's too bad about the Washington Post. I'm sure* Mr. Milbank has some good points to make, but because he runs around calling Hillary Clinton a "bitch" and Nico Pitney a "dick" and accusing members of congress of making "fascist salutes" and dressing up in a smoking jacket to act out his sophomoric little skits (oh, wait: those were cancelled) and generally behaving like a not-particularly-bright thirteen-year-old, it winds up discrediting the good stuff the Post does.
Anyway, I'm glad Milbank responded, because it gives me an opportunity to address something I left out of my post last night: Milbank's column was a complaint about the decline in civility in public discourse:
As President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night, the nation's rapidly deteriorating discourse hit yet another low.
The national debate, already raw for years, had coarsened over the summer
And so on.
Yeah, that's right: Dana Milbank, whose dress-up skit show was cancelled after he called the Secretary of State a "bitch," was handing out lessons in civility. And now he's offering lessons in being taken seriously. I'll pass.
* No, not really.
In fact, KNEW in San Francisco serves as Savage's flagship station for his syndicated radio show. Make that was. As Think Progress reported, the station yanked Savage off the air today. Permanently.
The station's statement:
We have decided to go in a different philosophical and ideological direction, featuring more contemporary content and more local information. The Savage Nation does not fit into that vision.
I'm sure The New Yorker is crushed.
Total viewers for Fox's 8 p.m. So You Think You Can Dance: 6.45 million
Total viewers for Obama's 8 p.m. speech on ABC, CBS, NBC: 21.1 million.
Broken down by network, Fox TV nearly managed to come in last place for the time slot last night. During the Obama speech, ABC grabbed 7.4 million total viewers, CBS attracted 5.6 million, and NBC won the night with 8.2 million. That, according to TV by the Numbers.
Yes, even though ABC, CBS, and NBC were all broadcasting the same thing, two of the three beat Fox's original programming.
Congratulations Rupert Murdoch. By taking the extraordinary step of refusing to carry a presidential address before a joint-session of Congress, he not only walked away from any sort of public interest obligation, but Fox TV managed to get clocked in the ratings as well.
ABC's John Stossel is headed for Fox News, perhaps the only "news" outlet in America that won't immediately take a hit to its credibility by bringing him on.
That Stossel would feel at home at Fox should come as no surprise based on his performance as an ABC employee. Who could forget, for example, Stossel's post-Katrina column "In defense of price-gouging"?
You're probably thinking that Stossel was making a theoretical argument that high prices can be helpful in discouraging frivilous consumption. Surely Stossel wasn't actually saying that in water-scarce post-Katrina Louisianna, those stores that were lucky enough to have bottled water should charge those who were in danger of dying of dehydration $20 for a bottle?
But that's exactly what Stossel was saying:
Consider this scenario: You are thirsty -- worried that your baby is going to become dehydrated. You find a store that's open, and the storeowner thinks it's immoral to take advantage of your distress, so he won't charge you a dime more than he charged last week. But you can't buy water from him. It's sold out.
You continue on your quest, and finally find that dreaded monster, the price gouger. He offers a bottle of water that cost $1 last week at an "outrageous" price -- say $20. You pay it to survive the disaster.
You resent the price gouger. But if he hadn't demanded $20, he'd have been out of water. It was the price gouger's "exploitation" that saved your child.
It saved her because people look out for their own interests. Before you got to the water seller, other people did. At $1 a bottle, they stocked up. At $20 a bottle, they bought more cautiously. By charging $20, the price gouger makes sure his water goes to those who really need it.
The people the softheaded politicians think are cruelest are doing the most to help. Assuming the demand for bottled water was going to go up, they bought a lot of it, planning to resell it at a steep profit. If they hadn't done that, that water would not have been available for the people who need it the most.
Ah, no. By charging $20, the price gouger makes sure his water goes to those who can pay $20. That isn't the same as "the people who need it the most" on a random Tuesday in Des Moines. When talking about post-Katrina New Orleans, where many people no longer possessed anything more than the shirt on their back, it is simply obscene to equate the people who could afford to pay $20 for a bottle of water with the people who most needed water.
That John Stossel doesn't understand a basic thing like the difference between needing something and being able to pay grossly inflated rates for it tells you pretty much everything you need to know about him. Come to think of it, he just might actually drag Fox down a bit.
Here's a bit more:
Glenn Beck has revived one of the most shameful chapters in American political history. Sen. Joseph McCarthy spent years ruining the lives of patriotic Americans serving in the United States government and beyond. He did it through fearmongering and baseless, unproven accusations. He combed the past statements and associations of loyal U.S. citizens and then shamefully accused them of being traitors bent on the destruction of the American way of life.
At a time when conservatives are unable to find new leadership or present new ideas to address the challenges facing our nation, it is perhaps fitting that their media leaders and spokespeople -- individuals like Glenn Beck -- have fallen back on a 60-year-old slander: communist. Beck's forum consists of his radio program, his nightly show on Fox News, and his books. The witnesses he calls at his hearings form the endless parade of political demagogues he hosts as guests. And one by one, he is targeting the president's advisers -- not based on their current actions or statements, not because of any actual policy initiatives they have proposed since President Obama took office, but rather through the use of guilt-by-association reasoning or because of cherry-picked comments from their past, often provided in a highly misleading context. It's just the kind of vitriolic irresponsibility that McCarthy specialized in, too.
Beck's fixation on a sinister communist threat undermining America's capitalist democracy would be entirely laughable were it not revealing of something more fundamental. Beck and the Right have consistently portrayed Obama as a Manchurian candidate bearing Trojan Horse policies. Thus, the president isn't a uniter but a secret divider. He doesn't love the America we have, hoping to improve it. Rather, he seeks to destroy it. He doesn't represent a triumph on America's path toward genuine racial equality. Rather, he seeks little more than obtaining reparations and the radical redistribution of wealth and power on a racial basis. Such a philosophy plays to the most distrustful -- and often, dangerous -- elements of our society.
Beck will not stop with Van Jones. Yesterday he dedicated much of his show to Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar, whom he portrayed as a crazed animal rights activist who believes that rats matter more than people. As was the case with McCarthy, his distortions will continue unabated until the public recognizes his campaign for what it is: a witch hunt. As journalist Edward R. Murrow said of McCarthy in 1954, "We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men."
Such words could, and should, be spoken, too, of Beck.