Goodbye, Glenn Beck!

from ColorOfChange.org:



Our community just won an important and hard-fought victory. After more than 285,000 people spoke out, leading to a loss of over 300 advertisers from his top-rated show, Glenn Beck's program on Fox News Channel will come to an end this year.1

This is huge. Beck's record of race-baiting is virtually unsurpassed among mainstream media figures, and Fox News has continued to give him a platform -- until now.

We launched our campaign against Beck in July of 2009 after he topped a week of race-baiting directed at President Obama with the most stunning statement of them all—he called Obama a "racist" who has "a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture."

Within days we approached Fox News' advertisers, asking them to stop supporting Beck's poisonous statements with their dollars. Nearly 300,000 people signed statements that we presented to advertisers. Thousands of others made phone calls when our staff's calls and member comments weren't enough. Within weeks, dozens of advertisers dropped the show. In the end, more than 300 advertisers decided that Beck was too much of a liability and requested that their commercials not be shown during Beck's program.

In their statement announcing the shift, Fox News trumpeted Beck's ratings success. In reality, Beck's audience and ratings have been on the decline. Fox has also steadily refused to admit the obvious impact that the loss of more than 300 blue chip advertisers has on their bottom line. Beck's only advertisers have been lower-tier brands that could not have earned Fox News as much revenue as the upper-level brands—thus turning a show that should have been a top earner into a financial liability.

Together, we've succeeded in doing something very important. We've helped hammer home the message that deception and race-baiting are not acceptable for a "news" network and that everyday people will hold accountable those who are responsible.

Beck will remain with Fox News Channel as a producer, and we'll be watching for what might come from that. And we'll continue to push back on Fox's race-baiting problem, which of course goes beyond Beck. But today's victory is important: Beck's voice, his incessant conspiracy theories, his dangerous incitement to violence, his casual race-baiting—all of these will be gone from television by year's end. And that's something for which we should all be proud.

We want to thank CREDO, Media Matters, MoveOn.org, and StopBeck—all of whom played critical roles in the effort. But more than anyone, we want to thank YOU, our members, who helped us win this important victory. We couldn't have done it without you.

Remember, ColorOfChange.org is powered by you, our members—your energy and your dollars. Our tiny staff ensures your contributions go a long way. If you can support our work financially, whatever the amount, please click the link below:

https://www.colorofchange.org/donate

Thanks and Peace,

-- James, Gabriel, William, Dani, Matt, Natasha and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
April 7th, 2011

References:
1. "Glenn Beck to End Daily Fox News Program," The New York Times, 4-6-2011
https://act.colorofchange.org/go/805...432.-2S2-t&t=4

--

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

from ColorOfChange.org:



Our community just won an important and hard-fought victory.
--

---

YAY!!!! Lets celebrate! This calls for Hendrix tune... :Yinyangv:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psr0...eature=related

Very cool! I never saw this or heard this song.. Jimi on guitar is great, of course..

Scott.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

YAY!!!! Lets celebrate! This calls for Hendrix tune... :Yinyangv:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psr0...eature=related

---

Yes, from what I hear, Beck's a right-wing nutball spewing vileness, but I cannot condone responding with censorship. There are many millions who think progressive ideas are as vile as you and I consider Beck's ideas to be. Are you ready for them to pressure advertisers to shut down progressive shows? Censorship is one of those knives that cut both ways. There's a Golden Rule issue here. Censorship may seem like a great idea when we're on the censoring end, but when we're the ones being silenced, we'll be screaming "Unfair!" Progress comes from more communication, not less. Silencing the expression of nasty ideas doesn't make them go away; it just makes them more insidious, driving them underground where they fester, empowering their followers with a self-righteous victim mentality that will motivate them more. I wish those who invested time and energy into shutting Beck up had instead put that time and energy into cultivating more outlets for progressive messages. Speaking as one who believes strongly in the right and the necessity of speaking my heretical mind, and as one who recognizes that critical thinking cannot proceed without hearing everyone's side of the story, I've gotta say: Censorship sucks--even if it's the "good guys" doing it to the "bad guys".

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Yes, from what I hear, Beck's a right-wing nutball spewing vileness.........

---

I have to disagree. When people get together and express their own freedom of speech by telling the advertisers that they dislike Glenn Beck's program, they are not censoring his free speech, only minimizing his impact. Glenn Beck is still just as free to say whatever he wants, and he is still free to find a new show on another station. Nobody censored him. Him being taken off the air by angry people's demands is a result of our democracy. While I agree with you that the energy spent by the lefties to oust Beck could have been directed more appropriately towards a positive message or campaign, I still disagree that this is censorship. BTW, I am super duper opposed to censorship of anyone, but should the peoples who think that Glenn Beck's show is vile just sit back and not speak their minds to the advertisers? :Yinyangv:

As much as it pains me to agree with Someguy (snerk!) Pod Poisson, I do. A boycott is not censorship.

Censorship is when an official source suppresses First Amendment rights. This did not happen in this case. Recently a local impresario deleted some eloquent anti-nuclear power prose I wrote on his Facebook wall. Then reposted the same article comparing industrial deaths from coal, petroleum and nuclear.

I was incensed, but I didn't confront him on FB. Even though I consider his act to be that of a coward, a vandal and a censor. And those are the nice words that apply. I can't write how I really feel here. (Does that make Barry a censor?)

When I talked to him, gingerly, politely, about it in person, several days later, his response was, "I don't care." That told me everything about him that I needed to know.

But it was his Wall on FB where I posted. His party, his game. So was his deletion an act of censorship? I claim it was, but I also acknowledge that it was one that he had a right to engage in.

If somebody vociferously pissed on my FB Wall with arguments that I found to be anathema, well, I'd probably leave them there, unless they were direct insults (which my argument and observations were not in any way. Well, I did say nuclear power was prompted by hubris among other things. I suppose someone supporting it could find that insulting, especially if they suffer from hubris!?) and do my best to refute (refudiate?) them. But that's just me.

Fox is canceling Beck's drivel and provocations for financial reasons, and maybe out of embarrassment. Maybe they're tired of being painted with his Crazy Stick? (Yeah, right!). It's their network. Does that make them censors?

Again, economic boycotts are not censorship. You have to be the government, or the boss, or the owner, to be a censor. And it's debatable in the case of the last two roles.

Dixon: I'm strongly in favor of freedom of speech. Years ago, thinking I wanted to hear from the conservative point of view, for balance, I used to actually listen to Glenn Beck, (it sounds like you haven't, Dixon..) , and he would be sounding interesting, informed , and even intelligently discussing herbs, about which he is (somewhat incongruously, I thought,) quite knowledgeable, but quite often, he would launch into angry, "vile" right-wing, invective.. after a while, I realized I had a choice and didn't need to absorb his hostility negativity, and anger. (irregardless of his political leanings).

I just want to add another point, here. Since deregulation laws were passed, the media outlets and stations have been bought up and consolidated into a few huge conglomerate companies, such as Fox News, etc.. there are only a few! Print newspapers are practically extinct, especially any kind of progressive, independent ones! In my experience we as Americans do not have free access to information, it is generally filtered and mediated by these commercial interests. Fortunately, the internet, (including social networking), public radio, and a few tiny independent or college owned stations are sometimes available, to fill in some of the many blank spaces in information..

I know that we as Americans do have a relatively free society compared to most other countries and I am grateful and appreciative of that! However.. in my opinion, and my personal experience, there has been a substantial erosion of independent reporting, news coverage and and open discussion in this country, in the last 20 years, or so.

The power of wealth is being consolidated and to me, it seems like the wealthy put a huge amount of money and attention on conserving their power and wealth. I know conservatism is supposed to be about political ideology, but I talk to quite a few conservative wealthy people and a lot of what they talk about is conserving their own assets! That's what I see conservatism to be focused on, these days, even if it means suppressing information, minimizing, or putting a positive spin on horrible disasters, such as the gulf oil disaster, The Japanese nuclear disaster at Fukishima, etc.. They are not primarily focused on constitutional issues, the rule of law, consensus, or moderation.

I think that listeners have a right to flex their muscles if the airwaves are being dominated by blowhards like Beck and Limbaugh. (I admit it, I have a bias against them!) I would not be at all surprised to find that their shows are supported quite strategically by conservative think tanks. They do a fine job of polarizing the two main "parties", characterizing various groups, individuals, and interests as "radical", "leftist", or "socialist", even when they are not.

My overall point is, I guess, that individuals have a right to demand accurate information, free of "hate speech", from their news and entertainment outlets.. if this is not provided, I think they have a right to protest, boycott or otherwise express and assert their preferences.

Public Service Announcement: as far as I know, no conservative talk-show host was injured the the process of writing or posting this rant.. : ) I don't think either Glenn or Rush have very thin skins, but if they are somehow offended by my characterization of them as "blowhard conservative talk-show hosts", I'll be happy to apologize to them in person!

Scott.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Yes, from what I hear, Beck's a right-wing nutball spewing vileness......

---

Scott, I was going to hit the "gratitude" icon after your post, until I got to the last bit about apologizing to the Glenster and PuffleBall. Maybe you were slyly jesting, but just in case you weren't:

You have nothing to apologize for, in regard to them. They have much to apologize for, to the world. I won't be anticipating any mea culpas from them, ever.

Thanks for thinking about hitting the gratitude icon, MM.. : )

I highly doubt if GB and RL give a flying you-know-what about my opinion. In fact I have a theory that their schtick is just a schtick.. a very profitable one for them, I imagine. If not they have sold their equivalent of a soul for far too little. I think it's possible that what began as entertainment and a good-paying gig has inflated their egos so far that they have really bought into their own mythos! So yes, that was my attempt at a sly jest! : ) Or just overt sarcasm, I just forgot to include the appropriate emoticon! ; )

In my personal opinion, both "entertainers" go too far in their venomous diatribes.. I think they exert a polarizing, inflammatory, and stupifying effect on their audience, even if many of us are able to easily recognize the pointlessness of listening to their programs.. perhaps they offer simple solutions for complex problems? An easy vicarious outlet for peoples' festering and un-articulated anger? I dunno. So many Americans seem to look at world and national affairs as if they were football games: Our side, versus those other a**holes.. I think it's pretty ignorant and sad.

I think I've ranted enough for one day, at least, but I just want to mention that I was reflecting on the growing power of humor in the public marketplace, when coupled with intelligence, political and media savvy and a certain je ne sais quoi.. : )

For instance: only after Jon Stewart lambasted Transocean bonuses, did the company award (some of?) the bonus money to victims of the oil rig disaster.. THEIR oil rig disaster...

https://www.slashcontrol.com/free-tv...art/3942431155

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/..._n_845399.html
(It appears to me that the money given to victims was a fraction of the bonuses.. but I might have misread something.. ; /)

Scott.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

Scott, I was going to hit the "gratitude" icon after your post, until I got to the last bit about apologizing to the Glenster and PuffleBall. Maybe you were slyly jesting, but just in case you weren't:

You have nothing to apologize for, in regard to them. They have much to apologize for, to the world. I won't be anticipating any mea culpas from them, ever.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

As much as it pains me to agree with Someguy (snerk!) Pod Poisson, I do.

---

?? I've yet to toss in any fish to this discussion...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

?? I've yet to toss in any fish to this discussion...

---

My Bad PodFishy, I was in a rush and conflated you with Dixon. Please forgive my egregious error!

This is no excuse, but perhaps the pain of contradicting our resident rationalist was too much for my unconscious and I deflected by conflating your avatars. Like I said, no excuse. Especially on a "conscious" bulletin board.