Why Glenn Beck & Fox News Can't Escape the "Racist" Trap

Have so many blue-chip advertisers ever fled a program as quickly as the who's who of corporate America that's sprinted away from Glenn Beck in recent weeks? I certainly cannot recall ever seeing a mass exodus of this scale.

If any television program had lost just three or four of those types of high-caliber advertisers, it would be seen as an extraordinary move in a media environment in which grassroots attempts to pressure advertisers have traditionally yielded modest returns. But at Fox News, Glenn Beck is rewriting television history right before our eyes: four dozen lost advertisers and counting. All of Beck's big-time advertisers have fled. All of them.

As momentum continues to gather behind the unprecedented boycott effort led by ColorofChange.org, Beck and Fox News executives seem to be flailing around as they frantically search for a way to stop the exodus.

But here's what I don't get: Why doesn't Beck go on TV every day and simply defend his "racist" claim? Why doesn't Beck stand up for the racist remark and stake his reputation on it? Because right now, the pathetic, squishy approach he's taking where he limply lashes back while pretending the ad boycott sprang from some mysterious place -- where Beck plays the victim and pretends he never made the "racist" smear -- is just too lame for words.

Read the full Media Matters column here.

Follow Eric Boehlert on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EricBoehlert

Comments

[VeryFairMOR]

I certainly don't support Glenn Beck's racist remark.
However, ressponsible democrats have charged basically that anyone who disagrees with them must be a racist, and they don't pay any price with advertisers.
I think both sides should lower the heat on this racist charge.
It's interesting how Mr. Beck's ratings have continued to climb during this boycott. Of course the left will explain that by saying that all Fox viewers are racist, committing the same sin as Mr. Beck.
Also, it's fairly painless for advertisers to boycott Beck. They are not boycotting the Fox network, as I understand it, just Mr. Beck's show.
I agree with the idea that the best judge of truth is the people, as Jefferson and Mill said. That is where the final arbitration on this issue will occur.
Right now it's sort of a painless, feel good, thing to pile on to Beck for his unfortunate remark.

[seekingtounderstand]

You guys do know that his show is known as political theater, right? Its suppose to be seen as a show like JStewart but for Fox viewers. I love to go see all kinds of comedy acts and I caught one of his shows two years ago. He is a funny comedian. But your giving him a great gift by demonizing him and starting boycotts. Your making him rich.

[generationyes]

That's demonstrably false. His advertisers are fleeing in droves. That's where the money comes from. Try again.

[billhodges]

On Thursday afternoon he had a full range of ads with only 2 filler ads. Sorry but it is not working.

And now the new revelations of the 9/11 truther signature of Van Jones on the 2004 form they published. He is number 46 on the list.

Also, these new links that are very damning:

http://bit.ly/mGtpD
http://bit.ly/cewLy

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

[VeryFairMOR]

This remark is an example of the, by now common, attempt to dismiss anything conxervative as being merely "entertainment".
Sure, Glenn is not boring to watch, and Rush is not boring to listen to, but to claim that they have no substance to what they say is just laughable.
When liberal commentators crack the occaisional joke, they are not immediately condemed by the right as being merely entertainers.

[sasidechick]

I love when Fox says that these people haven't fled Fox News--just Beck's show so there.

Yes, but networks run commercials during programming 24/7. At Fox, they are running them 23/7. Don't tell me it isn't affecting their bottom line.

[rhurc]

By always calling people "racists" simply shows that their argument is one you can't logically refute so you allow yourself to walk away from the conversation imagining you are taking the high road when you're actually taking the coward's escape route. You're just coming across as a whining child attempting to slander his big brother. Good thing for you, though, you elected mommy as president.. He'll give you a passy soon enough.

[futate01]

I'm curious as to how accurate the Nielsen rating system is. The few Nielsen people I've met in my life have been conservatives. Liberals tend to not watch as much tv anyway. I think these numbers are skewed from real world tv habits.

[talkinhedz]

I am curious as to how accurate your claim is that "Liberals tend to not watch as much tv anyway?"
I do have evidence that Liberals do not give to Charity at the same rate as Conservatives.

http://richiericher.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/arthur-brooks-who-really-cares-the-surprising-truth-about-compassionate-conservatism/

[forbitten]

If this President hates white people, why does he surround himself with them day in and day out. Most of his cabinet positions have been filled by whites. If he hate white people, he has a funny way of showing it. Beck made a gigantic mistake, and he should be "christian" enough to apologize for it.

Like the Bible says, open confession is good for the soul. If he would try doing it the Christlike way, his soul would fill so much better. He wouldn't have to do all these other stupid things to avoid saying - he make a huge mistake.

[VeryFairMOR]

I don't think for a moment that Obama hates white people.
I am beginning to think that he believes, as Reverend Wright and Van Jones seem to believe, in a narrative of American history in which the white person is the villain, and that it is not time to sort of "settle the score".
it's not hate, it's what he sees as economic justice.
I disagree with his world view, if indeed he holds that view, but I don't object at all to him believing that, or even expressing that view via his free speech.
What I do object to is some of the policies that come from such a belief. Many of which may be questionable constitutionally.

[worried1]

one of the factors driving the ratings for fox is that it is more available than other news channels. Fox new and cnn are both available to me on basic dish network; msnbc is not. I do not know about its availability through other tv vendors. And I watch it sometimes just for the entertainm­ent/disgus­t/outrage factor, not because I value the information or trust the source. Just the opposite.

I would be willing to bet a large part of the audience is just like me.

[radiclib]

.
.
Beck increasinly comes off as a little unhinged.
Maybe very unhinged.
Fox gets very righeous about its ratings, as if those numbers validate its programming.
They'd get bigger numbers with hard-core porn and torture videos.
In the grand scheme of things, they have identified a niche market and exploited it.
They are bottom-feeders.
.

[VeryFairMOR]

Sure, It's a niche market.
That's why you see such high poll numbers running against Mr. Obama and Pelosi and Reid. Sure. It's just that lunatic fringe, niche.
As usual the left tries do dismiss it's detractors by using ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the actual substance of their ideas.
Who on this web site is ready to stand up and defend Van Jone's remarks, or Mr. Holdren's remarks?
The right isn't accusing the opinion personalities on the left of being merely "entertainers".
And ratings. CNN and MSNBC regularly trumpet their ratings. Sure, they have to cherry pick the ratings to find anything positive, but they proclaim they have great ratings on a regular basis. CNN uses something like the phrase, "CNN, the world leader in cable news", as part of it's regular sign in/sign off message.

[forbitten]

I watch it sometimes too, but I can only stomach about 5 minutes a week. I can't stomach so much hate against one person - our President.

Also, they constantly trash every real news organization as being "in the tank" for the President, only because the other news programs AREN'T trying to destroy the President, though I sometimes wonder if CNN is buying into "in the tank" guilt trip argument from Fox.

[VeryFairMOR]

My oh my. You say "I can't stomach so much hate against one person - our President."
How did you ever make it through the Bush years, when "our president" was submitted to hatred on an almost unprecedented scale?
I admire you for taking all that hatred of our president in the Bush years, and now, poor you, having to suffer through a small minority of the press having the audacity to even question any of Mr. Obama's policies.

[JohnnyChristmas]

I look forward to the ONLY ad on Fox to be the grainy black and white "Let's go out to the kitchen" jingle, with the milk carton and sandwich carrying the 'intermission' banner.LOL!

[JohnnyChristmas]

Preferrably: Permanent Intermission.

[Dosadi]

LOL!

[9liberal]

This color of change group has been powerful, but they need to get those advertisers to remove their ads from fox all together, because as long as rupurt and his greed isn't being affected, he won't do anything. the only way beck will be punished is if rupurt loses money. we all know he doesn't care about integrity.

[Vxx]

Agreed... simply moving the location of your ads -- is disingenuous.

[Paolo7219]

Hopefully, advertisers will flee from the enitre Fox "News" channel. Now THAT would be something to celebrate! Fingers crossed.

[on2u]

Jack Nicholson: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"

[NYCexile]

And the advertisers who 'pulled' their ads simply moved them to different shows. Nobody lost anything, either in terms of money or exposure for their products. I forget who, but at least one advertiser has moved their ads back to Beck's show.

So much for the vaunted 'boycott' It's working just as well as the one against Whole Foods.

[holyfrak]

It's because he is a racist and realizes owning up to it will eliminate any chance of advertisers getting behind him.