Beck Not Worthy of Sanction
Liberal readers were outraged and conservative readers were supportive of my blog post advocating that advertisers not pull their advertising from Glenn Beck's program on the Fox News channel in response to a proposed boycott of their products.
The comments and debate have been filled with intelligent and emotion-filled arguments that seem to boil down to two positions: 1) Those who want to shut up Beck, O'Reilly, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh and 2) those who don't want advertisers to kowtow to boycotts or try to stifle free speech and believe the hate mongers are not influencing public opinion but are merely pandering to the entrenched prejudices of an angry, hate-filled, mostly white uneducated fringe.
So my question is this, if advertisers should cancel their advertising in the conservative Beck's controversial television program, should Mutual of America cancel its sponsorship of PBS's "Bill Moyers Journal," which recently replayed a documentary titled "Critical Condition" that clearly and persuasively advocates in favor of health care reform? Health care reform is a major, divisive political issue, with liberals generally on one side of the line in the sand (the left side, of course) and conservatives on the other side.
Right-wingers typically view Bill Moyers as a soft liberal, perhaps less strident than Beck, but idealistically and politically as much an anathema as Beck and O'Reilly are to the left. So why aren't right wingers calling for Mutual of America to withdraw its support from "Bill Moyer's Journal" and for other sponsors to pull their support from other PBS or NPR or MSNBC programming?
Perhaps conservative organizations are advocating boycotting PBS, NPR, and MSNBC programming they don't like, but I have heard nothing about it. I suspect it is the tone of Beck's stupid racist remark as much as his right-wing rabble rousing and hate mongering against Obama that is upsetting liberals, many of whom want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine in an attempt to muzzle conservative hate mongers such as Rush Limbaugh who are distributed on FCC-licensed radio stations.
However, Beck, O'Reilly, and Hannity are on Fox News on cable, which is not regulated by the FCC, so they would continue to bloviate even if the ineffective Fairness Doctrine were reinstated (something Obama is on record as being against, and rightly so).
I think the solution to the Beck and right-wing ranters problem was provided by an insightful comment I received from a conservative friend of mine who was the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in the George H. W. Bush administration:
"As Justice William O. Douglas once referred in a Supreme Court decision to the Communist Party of the US, the hysterical commentators are, '...the poor peddlers of unwanted wares; their goods remain unsold.' Why bother elevating the focus on these ranters by suggesting they're worthy of sanction?"
Justice Douglas said it much more eloquently than I ever could. Glenn Beck's or Bill O'Reilly's or Lou Dobbs' rants are not worthy of sanction.
Follow Charles Warner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CHWarner
Eva Paterson: Glenn Beck's Attack On Van Jones: Fantasies and Falsehoods
Van Jones draws a distinction between "cheap patriotism" and "deep patriotism." I highly recommend that chapter to Glenn Beck.
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
Coughs and clears my throat...it seems to me "lies, etc," are seen as opinion and Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman. Free speech is "free speech" you don't like what someone says, then turn him/her off and don't listen. The choice is yours. As to advertisers leaving Becks show, well, not really because they haven't pulled them from the TV station, now have they? It is simply called appease the "callers." FCC (Mark Lloyd too) is attempting to shut down opposing views of the Obama Administration and I find this very disconcerting. America needs to hear/read both sides of any issue. This is part of what makes the United States a Democracy.
This boycott is not a matter of liberals merely wanting to silence someone they disagree with.
This is a matter of silencing someone who lies, someone who is given a nationwide platform to spread hate speech, propaganda and lies under the guise of "news" and who is fomenting confusion & rebellion among viewers who don't know any better.
The right to "Freedom of Speech" means that citizens in the USA are free from GOVERNMENT interference with the expression of their ideas. Where has colorofchange advocated government interference with Glenn Beck's right to speak?
Groups of citizens who write to advertisers to complain about Beck and who decide NOT to buy products from companies who financially support him are in no way interfering with anyone's constitutional right to free speech.
We are not advocating governement interference with Beck's right to (valid) free speech. We are making decisions not to patronize certain companies and we are communicating with them to let them know why we have made that decision. We are as FREE to do that as Beck is FREE to tell lies on Fox News.
Agreed. I was amazed that Mr Warner missed such an obvious point; unless he also subscribes to right wing claims that liberals are against "free speech". One cannot object to Beck et al expressing an opinion contrary to the President's; the objection is to the personal attacks and the LIES.
He does subscribe to right wing claims that liberals are against free speech. In his own words, quote:
right-wing rabble rousing and hate mongering against Obama that is upsetting liberals, many of whom want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine in an attempt to muzzle conservative hate mongers such as Rush Limbaugh who are distributed on FCC-licensed radio stations.
/quote
That's only true by very sloppy definitions, both of "true" and of "many". Those who want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine are a small minority of Liberals, although the more conservatives lie on the public's air waves, the more convincing the case for the Fairness Doctrine becomes. Personally, I'm more in favor of just suing for slander and libel until it becomes unprofitable to defame people.
Some of the richest people in the world support the Fox Propaganda Network. They are so rich that they can afford prime-time commercial-free programming. Their shows can "let freedom ring," play patriotic music, waving flags, etc. Beck uses imagery to get his propaganda message out. What I'm curious about is who is writing for these shows? Who composes the sound bites & talking points? Come out, come out wherever you are.
I want the boycotts to continue until Fox shows that the right wing have so much money that they can broadcast Beck commercial-free. Without the very rich GOP & corporations Beck wouldn't have a show in the first place. Let's expose this fiasco for what it truly is - paid propaganda.
Good point.
He's right. I want to muzzle Glenn Beck as well as Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Colter etc just as much as any liberal would want to. However, I agree that the call for the drop in sponsorship of Glenn Beck just give Beck more attention and thus the higher rating.
The best thing to do is just not give Beck any attention. You know how the media loves controversy and with controversy comes ratings. That is what the sponsors look at is the ratings.
Its kinda funny how this works out. If Beck really was an ignorant boob, then you would all just ignore him, and he would eventually shutup, or just lose his show, like most libs radio hosts have. In my area, Ed Shultz was on in the late morning, early afternoon, but guess what, nobody listened. So, he is not there anymore. I think Beck replaced him.
Anyways, to the point I was making, if he is just a hate filled spewer of radical right wing talking points, why give him so much attention. Why, if conservatives are so much loons and racists, and so far from the mainstream, why give it a second thought. Why, if its so wrong, do you not just argue back with the facts against what he is saying. Why simply attack him as a person, and not argue against what he is saying. Prove him wrong if he is. If you have been listening at all, you would know, he is asking for the Whitehouse to explain why he is so wrong, yet all we get is "don't refer to them as czars"???
What kind of condemnation is that? There are to many people involved here on both sides for these questions to be ignored. There are many true democrats that want these answers as well. Where are the answers? Why do the radical elements that have taken over the democratic party so eager to personally destroy Beck, rather then answer the questions honestly?
Glenn Beck made an inappropriate comment which was without substance nor justification. He got the attention he wanted and the ratings boost desired. He'll cool off for a while and then his handlers will invent something else for him to say or screw up which will turn into more ratings and so on...
The companies who pulled out are also getting a rating$$ boost here of their own.
Folks, this is all about money.
Let's stop worrying about the Rich Man's money. Let's start worrying how the Rich Man wastes OUR money....
Charles, you've missed one very key thing. Liberals are not calling for boycotts on Beck because of his views on healthcare reform...those fall under his first amendment rights. We are calling for boycotts of his show for his inflammatory language and thinly veiled d.e.a.t.h t.h.r.e.a.t.s. Bill Moyers has done no such thing.
Right-wing Fox News fans love to equate Bill Moyers with the likes of Beck et al, but it just doesn't work to compare a reasoned point of view presented in a logical manner and based on the facts with a crazed, racist rant based on lies.
I hope all of the Fox advertisers will reconsider how they spend their advertising dollars. We're all watching very, very closely.
Yeah you do that. And while you're doing that, keep watching the rising viewership of Beck. LOL
True Blood has rising viewership as well.... but at least people know better than to drink the blood. Doesn't seem to be the case with Beck's kool aid.
I'm sure advertisers who did pull out are crying now. Beck had 3M viewers his last show. You know the saying...the squeaky wheel...
And I bet those advertisers are squeeking loudly right now. LOL
Glenn Beck's mentor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP1RM4k7hV8
Worthy or not, Charles-- money talks.
Yes - and thanks to everyone who boycotted advertisers for Glenn. His numbers continue to rise every day, and democrats continue to show everyone who they really are.
Yes, we're citizens willing to put aside our desires in order to improve our national airwave's health. How shocking!
His show should be considered comedy. Contrast it with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Show which are satirical becacuse they include wit and good writing.
Plus "fake" news...
And yet again, people watch him - 3 million of them - and believe what he says.
Wonder if Jon Stewart and The Colbert Show could say the same. I suspect not.
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous argument on its face.
No company is going to do itself economic damage. Any public company that did so would face the wrath of its stockholders.
Just as lobbyists "inform" legislators, so do advocacy groups inform advertisers.
The only reason any advertiser is abandoning Beck's show is because they believe that it's going to cost them in the long run to be associated with Beck.
No company is being coerced into not sponsoring Beck. No company is even being morally convinced to not sponsor Beck.
They are simply making calculations of how they will make the most money.
If they are leaving Beck's show, they've decided they will get more for their money elsewhere.
It's called capitalism. And on occasion it works as it should.
Ah but they are leaving Beck's show...but simply redirecting their advertisments to other alloted hours so that they can compromise. And yet, Beck's ratings continue to climb.
Captialism would state that the greater the audience, the more the advertisers would want to be on the show, yes?
Advertisers will tend to pay for larger audiences.
But they also care about the audience composition. Specifically, who is the audience, what do they buy, and how much do they spend?
A show can have a gigantic audience. But if that audience doesn't spend enough on an advertiser's product, the advertiser won't pay to get in front of that audience.
If the advertisers are going to other time slots on Fox, that would indicate that other shows may have more desirable demographics. Simple translation, people who actually spend more on the advertisers' products.
As soon as Murdoch and Ailes find a show that brings them more money than Beck, he's gone. I'm not predicting Beck is toast. I'm just saying that's how it works.
Becks ratings may climb. He's entertaining not only the tin-foil hat crowd of believers, but also to the crowd that likes to laugh at the tin-foil hat crowd. We are a species of rubber-neckers, as I'm sure you've observed driving past any highway accident. But numbers don't make Beck's audience attractive. Follow the money.
Charles. As having commented in that post originally, the issue I have with you is that you contend that a boycott is an attempt to "restrict freedom of speech." In keeping with your theme of simply not understanding the first amendment, you cite Justice Douglas in your recent uninformed rant. You quoted Justice from a case where it was the state that was punishing speech. What you've failed to acknowledge, again, is that Color Of Change is not the state, nor have they taken up a campaign where they are pressuring the state to punish Beck. If you are going to attempt to inform others, please inform yourself first. It's getting hard for me to read you as anything else but a bit of a hack looking to stir the pot at this point.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
