Advertisers Should Not Cancel Ads in Glenn Beck's Program
Last week commentator Glenn Beck lost several advertisers in his Fox News program after he said President Obama was a racist with a "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture," according to the NY Times.
According to THR.com "Color of Change, an African-American online political organization ... has been spurring advertisers to stop supporting the show." And that "Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance and SC Johnson all said their ad placements during the broadcast were made in error and that they would correct the mistake."
The pressure on marketers to cancel advertising on TV programs that an interest group finds objectionable brings back memories of the Reverend Donald Wildmon's protests in the late 1970s against television shows that he thought promoted immoral lifestyles. He spoke against such programs as "Three's Company," "M*A*S*H," and "Dallas" and urged his fundamentalist followers not to buy products from companies that advertised in the targeted programs.
His efforts failed miserably because consumers weren't going to stop buying Tide, Charmin, Prell, Colgate tooth paste, or Fords because Wildmon didn't like "M*A*S*H."
As David Ogilvy said in the 1960s, "the consumer is not a moron, she's your wife." Consumers are smart enough to understand that advertising is independent of programming and does not constitute an endorsement of the content. An advertiser that runs commercials on professional wrestling on TV is not signaling that it endorses stupidity and violence.
It is ironic and a sign of the changing times that in the 1970s the conservative, evangelical Mississippian Donald Wildmon pressured advertisers to cancel advertising in popular entertainment programs he considered immoral, and that an African-American group today is pressuring advertisers to cancel advertising in a conservative opinion program.
But the larger question it seems to me is about the ethics of urging advertisers to use their economic power to influence the agenda on the public debate.
As much as I despise racist remarks, right-wing hate mongers such as Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter, and over-the-top liberal hate mongers such as Keith Olbermann, and as much as I feel these venomous snakes are poisoning the TV atmosphere and polluting the public debate and debasing the agenda on issues of public importance, I don't want to silence them. I don't want to restrict their freedom of speech.
Restricting their freedom of speech would be worse for the country in the long run than the damage their poison does in the short term. And we don't want to go down the slippery slope of having advertisers decide which speech or which political opinion to support.
If we encourage advertisers to withdraw their support from conservatives such as Beck and O'Reilly because some people don't like their views, then it follows that we should encourage advertisers to withdraw their support from liberals Olbermann and Rachel Maddow because some people don't like their views either.
Furthermore, the idea of free speech has two concepts imbedded in it. Free in one sense means people should feel free to voice their opinions, whatever those views are. Free in another sense means that people should have access to information and opinion at no charge - that ideas should circulate freely in an open marketplace of ideas so that people can freely compare ideas and embrace the ones they like (that confirm their own biases).
Thus, for free speech to flourish and for the marketplace of ideas to be stocked with a plethora of competing ideas, we need Fox News, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Talking Points Memo, the Huffington Post, and yes, even Rush Limbaugh.
Remember, if it weren't for Fox News and Bill O'Reilly, we wouldn't have Stephen Colbert and probably even Jon Stewart to make fun of conservatives.
Most national advertisers are smart enough and sensitive enough to public opinion and sensibilities to understand where to place their advertising for maximum effectiveness. Most of these marketers know what type of content is relevant and conducive to influencing a product's liking or purchase. If pressure groups try to get advertisers to use their economic power for reasons other than advertising effectiveness, then they unwittingly encourage Pandora to open her box of unintended consequences, especially the potential limitation of free speech.
And advertisers that bow to pressure to expand their advertising criteria beyond branding and buying tacitly admit that they are willing to use their economic power to influence the content of the national debate. Therefore, they should not cave in to pressure.
They should say to pressure groups something like this: "We disagree completely with and abhor Mr. Beck's remarks, but we wholeheartedly defend his right to say them in a society that honors free speech, and we will not pull our advertising at this time. We hope Mr. Beck will refrain from making racist remarks in the future. We will also continue to place advertising in Rachel Maddow's TV program."
In the long run consumers will respect courage and the upholding of a basic value such as free speech more than kowtowing to pressure groups. However, an advertiser that does not cave in must frame and communicate its decision in terms of upholding free speech and at the same time denounce inappropriate remarks. By doing so, an advertiser would signal to Beck and Fox News that it will not continue to advertise in a program or on a channel that has a pattern of racist or other hateful remarks and signal to pressure groups that it does not support inappropriate, racist comments.
It's OK for advertisers to try to influence the tone or decency of the public dialogue, but not its content or agenda. It's a fine line, but advertisers must try to walk it thoughtfully.
Follow Charles Warner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CHWarner
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I don't care if he just gets fired from FOXnews or loses his License, but I certainly hope this sends a message to people EVERYWHERE that "We The People" NEED FOXnews GONE! Glenn Beck, Sean Hennedy and Fools like them are BIG PROBLEMS to our country's cause and should be IMMEDIATELY removed from ALL PUBLIC air waves. "We The People" have chosen Obama as our president.
If "we the people" really wanted Fox News gone, "we the people" would never watch Fox News, thus making them unable to be profitable and forcing them out of business.
Yet Fox News has higher ratings than any other cable news network. So it sounds like "we the people" want Fox News to stick around.
What you really mean is that they should be removed because you disagree with the way the report the news. Of course FORCING them out would destroy the very principles of free speech that your probably claim to respect.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with Fox or any other entity for that matter, but the hypocriticism you put on display with your ingorant comment is what turns those disagreements into the types of serious divides that prevent our country from using common sense.
As a caucasian member of your carefully pigeonholed "African-American" group of activists, I am appalled that you still think in terms of racial marginalization.
This is not a "wingnuts vs. M*A*S*H*" scenario. Glenn Beck uses hate speech on our public airwaves. We the people have a right and a responsibility to voice our displeasure.
Are you "entitled" to write your carefully crafted nonsense on HuffPo by the first amendment? No. It is a privilege extended by the editorial powers in charge.
Money drives the bus. Do not pretend otherwise.
Mr. Warner. Your post is utter nonsense. Wall Mart is quite capable of making there own ad buys and I am quite within my rights to politely request that they not sponsor Glen Beck.
Of course you are. But seeing that Glenn Beck has the third highest rated cable news show, companies would only be missing out on opportunities to reach potential consumers, which is a good and necessary thing for our economy and really has nothign to do with politics.
So, yes you can request it. You have the right to do that, and they have the right to advertise with whatever programs they are willing to pay for. But in the end, they are only hurting themselves (and you are encouraging it).
Glen Beck should be throwing off the air for his comments. I am glad those advertiser pulled their ads. We don't need idiots making our lives more complicated. We need people on both sides of the isle to be straight forward and honest. Glen Beck and those other talking Right wing heads are not being truthful. This is not restricting their speech this is restricting people from lying on public airways in regards to the President of the United States and public issues. I feel on public airways it should be honest coming from whoever is using those airways. People use the facts to present your case not your feelings.
Can you please give an example of one of his "lies" that can be proven?
The problem is, people like you, hear him give an opinion that you disagree with, which if fine, but then someone how decide that since you disagree with it, it must be a lie....
Since when where we a country that believed in shutting people down who we disagree with?
saying something on TV and then having your sponsors drop you is not losing your right to free speech.
that is business not free speech.he can go on his show and say what ever he wants to about anyone or anything as long as he has advertisers who don't mind their products associated with what he says.
you write:
'Restricting their freedom of speech would be worse for the country in the long run than the damage their poison does in the short term.'
However:
Firing idiots does not restrict their freedom of speech. And if you don't know by now what the damage of the poison is, then your best excuse would be that you are poisoned yourself.
On the other hand, I do not believe that you yourself believe a word you wrote.
I'm sorry, your logic is flawed - this is a million miles of clear sky between Reverend Donald Wildmon's campaign and the one against Glenn Beck. Free speech does not include yelling fire in a crowded theater, nor should it include mock poisoning of our government officials.
Olberman and Maddow may be less than centric, but they never mocked killing Bush or any other officials of that failed administration.
Why is it when we (on the left) loose our sense of humor regarding people like Beck mocking threats of death, the right comes back and says 'just take it, free speech, etc", yet when Politically Correct host Bill Maher says 'we are the one's who have been cowards... " after 8/11 I'm sure you (the right) supported the other argument, the one that lost one of the last good forums on network TV.
Wow, Pretzel Logic!
No wonder the left can't move anything lately, wev'e got idiots on our side kneecapping any defensive move we make. I have to say I couldn't make it through this dribble to the end.
No one is trying to stifle Mr. Beck's Free Speech. It is his paid for speech to which people object. Your premise that advertising is unrelated to the programs on which it appears is in complete disregard to the very nature of media advertising. Consider that the company that buys the ad is, by definition, a "Sponsor". I understand that your career was built on the concept that ads are inherently good, but people and companies do bear responsibility for what they pay people to say in their names.
Give Beck Free Speech, Stop Paying Him.
A company that pays for an ad is completely different than a sponser. Sponsers pay to get endorsed by the event or person they are sponsering. Glen would literally have to talk about the sponsers, or display ads in his studio, which he obviously does not.
Putting out ads is simply about trying to reach potential consumers within the demographics that will be most likely to purchase your products. Turning it into a politicial or social influence really does nothing more than hurt the profitability of the company. Sure they can do it, and you can support them, but it doesn't mean anything. As long as almost 3 million people tune into the Beck's program everyday, there are going to be plenty of companies willing to to pay big bucks in order for their products to reach those viewers.
huffpo why did you scrub my comment???
Television, newspapers, magazines, mostly owned by big corporations, are run by CEOs and Boards of directors. They determine the editorial policies and what does or does not go into print or broadcast. They serve their own corporate agendas. The notion of a major media outlet striving to impart untainted, impartial, unbiased news, the concept of journalists being allowed to let their conscience and integrity guide their reporting is quaint, but unrealistic. They are only allowed to do that in so far as it corresponds with the BODs' interests. Withdrawing advertising from Beck's show does not only teach Beck that there is a decency line that should not be crossed, it also teaches the same lesson to Murdoch.
For very different reasons, I came to the same conclusion as Charles Warner.
Fox has found the perfect demographic for advertisers. Beck's audience comprises the most gullible and impressionable members of society. It must have been a very difficult business decision to pull commercials from this time slot.
Wait a second, did you just call Olbermann a hate monger? Really? Biased, yes. Hate monger? Not even close. If I were him I'd be pretty insulted to be lumped in with the overt racists you listed.
what you say would makes sense if I didn't know that these same advertisers boycotted Air America yet allowed their commercials to be run on Beck. Kinda knocks the whole argument to pieces doesn't it?
This is a great thought except for the fact that is entirely backward. Advertisers do not pull ads to tell the buying public what is right and wrong. The buying public tell advertisers what we feel is right and wrong. We did not become outraged by what Beck was saying after we saw that advertisers were pulling ads. We became outraged by what Beck was saying and advertisers decided that pulling advertisements was the best course of action. Its called capitalism, and it does not apply only when it helps conservatives. Liberals can use it as well.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
