Beck Pretends His Shows Are Not In "Decline"
On his Fox News show today, Glenn Beck suggested that the efforts of Jewish Funds for Justice and Media Matters to "accelerat[e] Beck's decline" are not working because "the lights are on" in his studio. In fact, Beck's Fox News program has lost over 300 advertisers, he has lost more than 1 million viewers over the last year, his radio show has been kicked off various stations including ones in New York and Philadelphia, and there is a possibility that Fox News executives are reportedly "contemplating life without" Beck.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Beck: The "Lights Are On" In My Studio
Beck Attacks Losers Who Haven't Been Able To Get Him Off Fox. From the March 28 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: [Jewish Funds For Justice] even have a special Fox News campaign now. Saying, "We stand up for those who offer nothing but scapegoats and demagoguery." They are also hiring interns in case you are looking to -- they are creating jobs. Here's the job description: "Jewish Funds for Justice seeks creative and motivated interns in New York City." I hope you're motivated.
The interns will focus on the solutions, not scapegoats, campaign and report to the senior campaign manager. The intern work will primarily focus on JFSJ's campaign to get Glenn Beck's hateful rhetoric off of Fox News and off of radio in several cities. They are going to disrupt me some more?
C'mon, guys. It's not working for you so far, is it? Man, sometimes you must feel like a [gestures loser], anyway, they continue: "This cutting edge campaign is receiving national press attention for accelerating Beck's decline." Am I in decline? Could somebody check with a doctor? "And promoting positive public discourse." I know it feels positive so far.
This weekend I was out in Texas. That's where I got the hat. It's the best disguise I have ever worn, because nobody expects me in a cowboy hat. I was actually out doing a stage show in Texas and I went to the Alamo on Saturday. My wife had never been. We walked the grounds of Davey Crockett and Colonel Travis. Tomorrow -- this has nothing to do with Media Matters because, I mean, really [gestures losers]. Can you imagine having that much money and still years later we're all still, lights are on. We're doing good. I mean, wouldn't you really at some point go I'm so depressed? [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/28/11]
More Than 300 Advertisers Have Fled Beck's Fox News Show
StopBeck.com: "Total Number Of Companies That Refuse To Have Ads On Glenn Beck: 300+." StopBeck.com has documented the number of advertisers who have dropped their ads on Fox News' Glenn Beck. To date, StopBeck.com has recorded over 300 sponsors that have dropped their advertisements from Beck's show. [StopBeck.com, accessed 3/28/11]
NY Times: Beck Is "Toxic For Ad Sales." In a September 29, 2010, article headlined, "Being Glenn Beck," The New York Times highlighted the difficulty Fox News experiences in finding advertisers for Beck. The article stated that "Beck's show is known in the TV sales world as 'empty calories,' meaning he draws great ratings but is toxic for ad sales." From the article:
While Beck's personal ventures and exposure have soared this year, his television ratings have declined sharply -- perhaps another factor in the network's impatience. His show now averages two million viewers, down from a high of 2.8 million in 2009, according to the Nielsen Ratings. And as of Sept. 21, 296 advertisers have asked that their commercials not be shown on Beck's show (up from 26 in August 2009). Fox also has a difficult time selling ads on "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Fox and Friends" when Beck appears on those shows as a guest. Beck's show is known in the TV sales world as "empty calories," meaning he draws great ratings but is toxic for ad sales. [The New York Times, 9/29/10]
Beck's UK Broadcast Has Run Without Any Ads For More Than A Year. Beginning February 9, 2010, the UK broadcast of Beck's show ran without any ads. It was not until February 7, 2011, shortly before the first anniversary of the show, that a handful of advertisers returned. However, the show has again run without any ads since February 18. [StopBeck.com, 3/28/11]
Beck's Ratings Are In Free Fall
The New Republic: "[Beck's] Show Has Lost More Than One Million Viewers" Over 2010. From The New Republic:
Just six months later, however, Beck seems to have traveled somewhere else entirely. His ratings and reputation are in steep decline: His show has lost more than one million viewers over the course of the past year, falling from an average of 2.9 million in January 2010 to 1.8 million in January 2011. He now ranks fifth among Fox's six weekday talk hosts, trailing lesser-known personalities like Shepard Smith and Bret Baier. Beck's three-hour radio show has been dropped in several major cities, including New York and Philadelphia, and has seen a ratings decline in most other markets. "It's hard to gain a million viewers," says Eric Boehlert, who follows Beck's shows for the liberal media watchdog group Media Matters, "but it's really hard to lose a million viewers." And Beck's fall contrasts with the fortunes of other Fox News hosts, like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, whose TV ratings stayed solid throughout 2010.
Beck's commercial viability also seems to have suffered. His viewership among 25- to 54-year-olds, a prized advertising demographic, declined by almost one-half in 2010. An advertising boycott organized by liberal groups has caused over 300 companies--including Procter & Gamble, UPS, Coca-Cola, and Wal-Mart--to stop showing commercials during Beck's show. The Beck brand isn't what it used to be off the airwaves either: His most recent non-fiction book, Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure, was his first book in eight years not to reach number one on The New York Times best-seller list.
[...]
What happened? Beck built a following by making outlandish, conspiratorial claims--about ACORN, Obama, and so on. (Bizarrely, his extremism may have augmented the number of curious liberal viewers tuning in: A Pew Research Center poll from last September found that 9 percent of Beck's Fox viewers identified as Democrats, and 21 percent as moderates or liberals.) But "anytime you have extreme stimulus," says Alexander Zaitchik, author of the unauthorized Beck biography Common Nonsense, "you'll have diminishing returns." Beck, says Zaitchik, was caught "in a vicious circle": To keep viewers coming back, he had to keep creating new, more intricate theories. [The New Republic, 3/3/11]
Beck Guest Host Equaled Beck's Ratings. During the week of March 7, Freedom Watch's Andrew Napolitano hosted Beck's show while Beck was on vacation. For those four rated days, the Napolitano-hosted program averaged 1.83 million viewers. The week prior to that, the Beck-hosted show drew an audience of 1.98 million, which meant there was just an eight percent dip in the audience while Beck was on vacation. [Media Bistro via Media Matters, 3/16/11]
Beck's Ratings In February Were Much Lower Than The Same Month The Previous Year. TVNewser reported that the February ratings for Glenn Beck's Fox News show dropped 26 percent compared to February of the previous year. [TVNewser, 3/1/11]
During The First Quarter Of 2011, Beck Has Reportedly Lost "More Than A Third Of His Audience Over The Last Year." The New York Daily News reports: "According to Nielsen Media Research, during the first quarter of 2011, Beck lost more than a third of his audience over last year--more than one million viewers. [New York Daily News, 3/23/11]
Radio Stations Drop Beck's Radio Show
NYC's WOR Drops Beck And Replaces Him With Mike Gallagher. In January, New York City's second largest radio station, WOR (710 AM), dropped Beck's radio show and replaced him with Mike Gallagher. The station cited Beck's poor ratings as the reason behind the decision. The New York Daily News reported:
Glenn Beck may be one of the hottest talk show hosts in the country, but he apparently left New York's WOR cold.
WOR (710 AM), one of the city's two biggest talk radio stations, said this morning it is dropping Beck's syndicated show as of Jan. 17 and replacing him with a familiar New York name: Mike Gallagher.
"The reason is ratings," said WOR program director Scott Lakefield. "Somewhat to our surprise, the show wasn't getting what we wanted." [New York Daily News, 1/4/11]
Buckley Radio President: "[Beck] Bounces Around Pretty Radically" And "Confuses People." In a conversation with Media Matters' Joe Strupp, Rick Buckley, president of Buckley Radio, explained his reasons for dropping Glenn Beck's radio show from his network. Citing the decision to pull Beck off the chain's flagship WOR, Buckley said:
WOR ... we gave it a two-year shot, it just didn't seem to get traction, it didn't get the traction we thought it would, especially with all the publicity and P.R. he's had, you'd have thought it would be a runaway. It was going the other way," Buckley said. "I don't know whether he is a little off the reservation in trying to prove his point for the masses ... the listening audience. [Media Matters, 3/28/11]
Beck Kicked Off Philadelphia's Top Talk Radio Station. In November 2010, WPHT, Philadelphia's top talk radio station, dropped Beck from its lineup. [Media Matters, 11/19/10]
Beck Loses Time Slot In Kansas City Due To Low Ratings. Beck reportedly lost his morning time slot on Kansas City's KMBZ "due to declining ratings." His show was moved to the less desirable late evening slot and local talker Chris Merrill took over Beck's morning slot. Bottom Line Communications reported:
Due to declining ratings, nationally syndicated talk show host Glenn Beck has lost his morning time slot on NewsRadio 980 KMBZ, and will be replaced by Chris Merrill from 9-11 a.m. The change is effective Monday (3/14).
Beck's show will now be extended for its full three hours and air from 9 p.m. to midnight weekdays on the Entercom station. [Bottom Line Communications, 3/13/11]
Wisconsin Radio Station: Beck's Show Is "Unacceptable For Broadcast." WTDY/Madison dropped Glenn Beck's show from its station in February. When asked for the reasons behind its decision, WTDY issued the following statement to Media Matters:
WTDY can no longer carry the Glenn Beck program. Over the last 12 months, the show has devolved into plugs for Fox News (the radio version of which is aired by our direct competitor), his books, and other personal endorsements. The lack of actual content becomes more apparent daily. Monday's program was the final straw; his unabashed deriding of Madison is unacceptable for broadcast in our community. [Media Matters, 2/24/10]
Fox News Is Reportedly "Contemplating Life Without" Beck
NY Times: Fox Is "Looking At The End Of [Beck's] Contract." In a March 6 article, The New York Times' David Carr reported that Fox News executives are "looking at the end of [Beck's] contract" which expires in December and "contemplating life without Mr. Beck." Carr further reported that since last August, Beck has "lost over a third of his audience on Fox -- a greater percentage drop than other hosts at Fox." From the New York Times:
Mr. Beck, a conservative Jeremiah and talk-radio phenomenon, burst into television prominence in 2009 by taking the forsaken 5 p.m. slot on Fox News and turning it into a juggernaut. A conjurer of conspiracies who spotted sedition everywhere he looked, Mr. Beck struck a big chord and ended up on the cover of Time magazine and The New York Times Magazine, and held rallies all over the country that were mobbed with acolytes. He achieved unheard-of ratings, swamped the competition and at times seemed to threaten the dominion of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity at Fox.
But a funny thing happened on the way from the revolution. Since last August, when he summoned more than 100,000 followers to the Washington mall for the "Restoring Honor" rally, Mr. Beck has lost over a third of his audience on Fox -- a greater percentage drop than other hosts at Fox. True, he fell from the great heights of the health care debate in January 2010, but there has been worrisome erosion -- more than one million viewers -- especially in the younger demographic.
He still has numbers that just about any cable news host would envy and, with about two million viewers a night, outdraws all his competition combined. But the erosion is significant enough that Fox News officials are willing to say -- anonymously, of course; they don't want to be identified as criticizing the talent -- that they are looking at the end of his contract in December and contemplating life without Mr. Beck. [The New York Times, 3/6/11]
NY Times: Beck Has Began Searching For Alternatives To Fox For His Future. In a March 22 article, The New York Times' Brian Stelter reported that Glenn Beck has considered taking over a cable channel or expanding his Insider Extreme Web service, should Beck not renew his contract with Fox News at the end of this year. The article went on to quote a Fox spokeswoman who, when asked about Beck's contract, said, "it's not up until December," but declined to comment further. From the New York Times:
But a cable channel takeover, even in part, carries enormous risk, as Ms. Winfrey and Ms. Stewart can attest -- they have more real estate now, but the ratings comparisons are not favorable. For Mr. Beck, the risk may be heightened by the fact that many advertisers have shunned him on Fox, in part because of a boycott that started after he called President Obama racist in 2009.
Furthermore, having cable channel turf may carry less importance in the future as more people access TV shows online.
Mr. Beck's other option is to expand Insider Extreme, the subscription portion of his Web site, glennbeck.com, by hosting an exclusive show there and by adding other content.
Insider Extreme already simulcasts Mr. Beck's three-hour radio show; shows a fourth hour hosted by his sidekicks; shows a daily show hosted by S. E. Cupp, a conservative commentator; and occasionally features documentaries.
[...]
People who have spoken to Mr. Beck say that neither option -- a cable channel or what would essentially be an Internet channel -- would be aimed at competing with Fox News, which is enormously popular on cable. Rather, it would try to extract more value out of Mr. Beck's loyal fans. The comparison to [Howard] Stern may be apt: his audience on satellite radio is smaller than it was on terrestrial radio, but the profits are higher. [The New York Times, 3/22/11]
I don't know what you're looking at, but I suspect it's not the ratings, Cutie.
And if they were actually so meaningless, why are you taking time and energy to post here like a 4-year old?
He's still 3rd in all of cable news behind O'Reilly and Hannity, and occasionally slips past Hannity for 2nd. There are also rare times when Greta beats Beck. But the Top-6 has always been O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Greta, Shep, and Baier, where any movement is only between them. Ratings declines haven't changed that.
While it's true that Beck's ratings have slid, so have basically ALL cable news shows since 2009, when the election/inauguration cycle ended. Fox News decline is not as bad as MSNBCs. Olbermann/O'Donell and Maddow used to easily bank well over a million viewers, now O'Donnell and Maddow are around 750-800k. CNN has even reclaimed the #2 network spot.
Even if Beck leaves, the door is open for Judge or maybe even John Gibson to come back. The network will continue to dominate. Chris Matthews is not going to all of a sudden become a ratings-winner at 5pm. His show is usually rock-bottom....even below Nancy Grace.
Keep up the good fight, MMFA, now that you admitted that this site is nothing more than an anti-Fox campaign, and not a non-partisan media watchdog group, as advertised.
And not all shows have been in decline.
Continuously check something that doesn't matter much?
Most, like you, aren't even bothering to offer examples of those "lies" anymore knowing that they, well, can't find any.
But you've earned your cracker, parrot. Good job!
And yet nobody's home.
Clearly you're still attempting sarcasm. Keep working at it, MagCynic.
As for O'Donnell and Maddow . . . what difference does that make? You are making the WRONG assumption that people who dislike Beck's dishonest, uneducated, dangerous con watch and care about O'Donnell and Maddow. Why? Just because brain dead folks like you sit and drool over a ridiculous opinion network 24/7 doesn't mean that MOST Americans do. See, MOST Americans aren't watching ANY of these networks.
Inform yourself, Mag.
I don't see any equivalent on the left-wing side! At least not anybody on the left-wing side that has an audience that numbers in the millions. We remain critical because Glenn is the MOST absurd and the MOST popular with is a nasty combination and we need to remain vigilant against his hyperbole, exaggeration, and emotional televangelism.
No pretending on MMFA's part. Just a summary of, well, facts; things somehow escape the attention of the man who has told us of perfect storms, Crime Inc., Weirmar moments, Archduke Ferdinand moments, the miracle of geese, remarkably well organized anarchists, and how a spooooooky duuuuude is planing to rule the world; ideas offered often in a haze of chalk dust and frequently spoken through a remarkably bad impersonation of a Star Wars Muppet.
Just who is the true pretender, you ask?
It's not MediaMatters that's making the flawed argument. It's Beck saying that his shows are not in decline.
"Barack Must Go" is another poster who usually uses another screen name. He's the one that always misspells "arguement". It's dishonest to post under multiple screen names to escape the bad reputation you deservedly have earned.
And "slander" is spoken. Both things start with an 's'. "Libel" is written, beginning with an 'l' like literacy. But I made no libelous allegation either. New posters have to wait to have their new posts vetted by MediaMatters moderators, and so the fact that your posts show up right away is clear evidence that you're a poster who's posted here before, but have simply changed your screen name.
We'll probably save a few giggles for you, too--particularly at statements like, "The dropped advertisers is a straw man (argument) also." A "straw man" is, well, a fake. The list of advertisers who have dropped Beck is quite real. Beck may still be able to turn a profit from selling ads to such prestigious companies as Lifestyle Lift, SokoloveLaw, and his old friends Goldline and Survival Seed Bank, but not as much as he could if he had blue chip sponsors like Apple (on the Drop Beck list), WalMart (on the Drop Beck list), Mercedes-Benz (on the Drop Beck list) eagerly saying, "Yes, I want my product associated with Glenn Beck!"
When Napolitano subs for Beck that time slot's rating are pretty much the same. How long do you think it will take for Fox to figure out that hire someone new, who will accept a contract for a great deal less than they pay Beck, and find themselves able to charge a bit higher advertising rates for that time slot again?
Point being, it's one thing to hate America, but it's another to refuse to provide at least some rationale behind the hatred.
Same goes for his fans. All 19 of them. (I'm not including the "Beck Fans" who have been lobotomized, they don't count as human. They're more like the flesh-eating mutants in I Am Legend. Only dumber.)
Just because someone has an apposing view on life, government and history doesn't mean they should be silenced. The fact that media matters is attempting to set such a precedent is not only dangerous, it should be against the law. Trying to silence someone by removing them from the broadcast system with brute force does not promote your ideals or ideas, it only silences free speech. What are you ideas? What are your ideals? What do you stand for Media Matters? Silencing the outspoken? Clear, concise, unfettered debate is a healthy thing, that should be cherished by folks that own and belong to an organization with the name "Media Matters".
I may be out on a limb by myself here, but you can't really have an opposing view on history. Sure, you can judge the impact and merits of certain events differently, or argue how things would have been had X not happened (or had X happened), but history by it's nature is a concrete thing. I agree on your point that we should not attempt to silence opposing viewpoints, but when it comes to history (and what Beck does to history; were history a person, Beck would be a sex offender), there are "facts", "legends", and "crap someone just made up".
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101060023
This revisionism is staggering! The Southerners were Founders too and they wanted to retain the instition of slavery. Most Northern founders supported slavery as well!!! The 3/5ths Compromise was brought about through complicated regional dynamics related to allocating taxation and representation and had NOTHING TO DO WITH ENDING SLAVERY. The 3/5ths Compromise WAS NOT MOTIVATED BY ABOLITIONIST FORCES!!!
This type of revisionism is frightening and that is why extreme right-wingers like Beck are monitored... Millions of people were purposefully fed disinformation by Glenn that day and millions are ignorant because of Glenn.
The South wanted slaves counted as fully human for purposes of representation (i.e. maximize Southern representation)... But did not want slaves counted in terms of taxation (i.e. minimize tax burdens on Southern states).
THUS, the 3/5ths Compromise was forged from this complex interplay of regional forces, and was NOT MOTIVATED BY ABOLITIONIST FORCES! Blacks were considered property by nearly every Founder and they Founders did not want to address the issue of slavery!
TRUTH!!!
Talk about revisionist history. I suggest you go and research the topic before you post undocumented interpretations of what actually happened. If your theory is so valid post a link that backs up your statement. Then I'll post 5 that dispute your rant.
I am telling you the truth that is well accepted history. I hope that you can accept actual "Truth" instead of Glenn's revisionism!
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise
- http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/documents/documents_p2.cfm?doc=306
- http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-three-fifths-compromise.htm
- http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Three_Fifths_Compromise.pdf
It was about taxation and representation plain and simple. The Southern "Founders" wanted to continue the institution of slavery. The Northern "Founders" also wanted to continue slavery by and large! Jefferson, Washington, and others OWNED SLAVES!
Even if they understood that their were philosophical inconsistencies with a pro-slavery position, they did NOT SEE BLACKS AS EQUAL and did not consider them full citizens by any means! We fought a Civil War and had 100 years of Jim Crow separation because the 3/5ths Compromise was NOT ABOUT ENDING SLAVERY!
How about equating Nazis with American Progressives? That type of revisionism is also staggering considering American Progressives fought back Nazism and disagreed with their extermination of the Jewish population! Yes, Hitler used some "socialism" but the government involvement only aided white Germans (Progressives would fight for equal government aid irrespective of race)! Hitler used govt. involvement to exclude certain segments of the population and that is antithetical to American Progressives! Second, exterminating or separating racial minorities is a far right-wing fascist ideal manifested in groups like the KKK and states rights advocates (Jim Crow) that align more with right-wing politics!!!
That is my biggest knock against Glenn. He NEVER presents an open, honest discussion of the issues. He NEVER presents a counter-argument or competing perspective, and he NEVER has an open, honest debate! Open debate is the cornerstone of American Politics but Glenn cannot be bothered with such things. VERY sad indeed.
Beck is deliberately feeding you half-truths and misinformation! Just for the record I think MSNBC is nearly just as biased and I am critical of left-wing bias just as I am critical of Glenn's biased approach!
I hope you read my posts above and actually became informed about the 3/5ths Compromise. It was the product of a complex interplay of regional forces and had NOTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY!!! Shame on Glenn for never hosting actual experts/historians and telling you the actual "Truth" about our Founders!
I hear you on the MSNBC pundits but I do think Glenn is the most outrageous and lies the most of all the political pundits. Glenn takes misinformation and televangelism to a never before seen level!
That's fine if you want to listen to Glenn but remain aware that he is pushing a biased political agenda instead of objective "Truth"!
If you know that the 3/5ths Compromise was about taxation and representation that would be awesome! The 3/5ths Compromise had absolutely NOTHING to do with ending slavery. If you can accept that actual "Truth" that would be a step in the right direction. Glenn tells people to do their own research, they just never seem to do any actual, objective, empirical research.
Just because someone has an apposing view on life, government and history doesn't mean they should be silenced. The fact that media matters is attempting to set such a precedent is not only dangerous, it should be against the law. Trying to silence someone by removing them from the broadcast system with brute force does not promote your ideals or ideas, it only silences free speech. What are you ideas? What are your ideals? What do you stand for Media Matters? Silencing the outspoken? Clear, concise, unfettered debate is a healthy thing, that should be cherished by folks that own and belong to an organization with the name "Media Matters".
More hypocrisy from the Beckbots.
Glenn Beck has no "clear, concise, unfettered debate." Please point to the debates he has participated in which are clear, concise, and unfettered. Also, please provide the "solid research" about his "quirky ideas," and feel free to use the Media Matters archives to see how many articles here have refuted this solid research and shown grounds for these quirky ideas to be at best laughably uninformed and at worse disgustingly ignorant or outright falsification.
I would request that instead of coming here and asking why the focus is on silencing Glenn Beck, that you instead take a day to read through the articles and, in the interests of intellectual honesty, try and find some examples yourself of Media Matters' work at showing the dishonesty of Glenn Beck's "work."
One would assume, that with 86 people assigned to discredit Beck on your payroll, that at least they'd be somewhat aware of what they were talking about.
Audience totals are meaningless if you don't have advertisers to sell to that audience. Make a note of it.
Me, I could only find this article from Talkers Magazine and it showed he picked up one station in Albany.
Then again, one would assume you would "do your own homework" and see the piles of evidence debunking Glenn Beck and wonder how he can be considered honest when saying anything.
written by roger ailes, frank luntz, karl rove, who are running the GOP.
Amazing how much moolah one can fleece in a mere two years. No wonder he's been making visits to the knee of Billy Graham and sounding more and more like a televangelist... follow the money.
Is he still building the Beck U?
and did poor little Wilmington ever get their money?
Yup, I watch him. Yup, I like him. Yup, I know how to do my own research and do not trust what anyone tells me. I also watch Madcow, Ed "the Dirtbag" Schultz and Larry too... they lie the most of all. Gotta go, Beck is on.
It's not a tidal wave of conseratism sweeping the Middle-East for instance, but indeed human rights. Many of the world's strongest economies are certainly not leaning in that direction.
I think Fox NEWS is essential viewing for anybody in the centre, much like MSNBC is. However, there can be no question which side raises more hate and bigotry as far as I'm concerned. Worse is Fox's insistence on using terms SO MUCH like 'fair and balanced' or 'your only source for impartial reporting'... Its more than a bit disingenuous.
It's no real surprise the sensationalists like Beck or Hannity or O'reilly get all the highest ratings, specially in a country where 1/3 of the population believe the bible should be read as a factual document. Gotta give credit to Rupert Murdoch tapping into a wealth of......... Less than highly educated folks. He does that all over the world, so I guess it shouldn't really be a surprise he did it so successfully with fox news and huge swathes of Southen and mid America.
They'll probably have a party, and go back to work the next day concentrating on all the other dishonest rightwingers in the media.