News Focus
News Focus
icon url

teapeebubbles

09/14/09 5:42 PM

#67731 RE: laurap #67730

Beck has lost over 50% of his ad dollars
icon url

teapeebubbles

09/14/09 5:43 PM

#67732 RE: laurap #67730

Our campaign to hold Glenn Beck accountable for his race-baiting and fear-mongering has been a great success, with 62 advertisers making it clear that they don't want their brands linked to Beck's vile rhetoric. Up until now, however, there's been a question of what the real consequences are for Beck and for Fox, especially as Beck's ratings have soared. It's starting to become clear.

Today, we're announcing that Glenn Beck's show has lost over 50% of its advertising dollars since just before our campaign started. From our press release about the news:

The advertising boycott of Glenn Beck has cost the controversial host over half of his estimated advertising revenue since it was launched by ColorOfChange.org a month ago. This according to data analyzed from industry sources.

Estimated advertising revenue [the total amount of advertising money being spent during a block of commercial time for a program] was collected on a week-by-week basis for a period of two months. According to the data collected, the amount of money spent by national advertisers on Beck's program per week was at its highest at approximately $1,060,000, for the week ending August 2, 2009. ColorOfChange.org launched their campaign at the end of that week and since then, 62 advertisers have distanced themselves from Beck. Data collected for the week ending September 6, 2009 shows Beck's estimated ad revenue at $492,000, equal to a loss of $568,000.

"Fox News Channel has consistently claimed they haven't lost revenue as advertisers abandon Glenn Beck, but the numbers prove otherwise," said James Rucker, Executive Director of ColorOfChange.org. "Fox News Channel has a limited amount of ad positions. If 62 companies refuse to run ads on two of their 24 hours of programming, they are losing inventory. No matter how high Beck's ratings have been lately, advertisers still see Beck as toxic and don't want him associated with their brands. There is no way that Fox News Channel is making the money they should be making with Glenn Beck."

Our campaign is working. Respectable companies don't want to be associated with Beck or support his show with their dollars. It's resulting in a major loss of funding for his show, and at the same time making it clear that Beck's race-baiting and fear-mongering are far outside the mainstream.

The longer Beck stays isolated, the more of a problem he'll be for Fox, and the less he'll be able to spread his lies and distortions. If we can keep the pressure on, Fox will have to make a choice: 1) drop Beck because it doesn't make business sense to keep him; or 2) communicate to the world that they're so intent on providing a platform for race-baiting and fear-mongering that they don't care if they lose money (a serious problem for a public company like News Corporation, the owner of Fox).

Thanks for everything you've done to make this effort a success -- none of it could have happened without the more than 200,000 of you who have stepped up to be a part of this campaign. More than ever, it's time to keep the pressure on. You can help by joining us in thanking the advertisers that have stopped supporting Glenn Beck, and calling on those whose ads are still running on his show to follow suit.
icon url

teapeebubbles

09/15/09 6:15 PM

#67772 RE: laurap #67730

Matt Latimer, a former Bush speechwriter, has a new book coming out, featuring some provocative behind-the-scenes insights from the confused and mismanaged White House. The published excerpts are already causing a bit of a stir.

The former president wasn't impressed with Sarah Palin, for example, saying she wasn't "remotely prepared" to seek national office. Bush also had unkind things to say about Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. In particular, he said the current president "has no clue."

Coming from George W. Bush, it was ironic criticism.

GQ published a lengthy excerpt in its new issue, most of it focusing on the Bush White House's response to the financial crisis a year ago. Apparently, it took some effort to help the then-president understand the seriousness of the crisis and the solution he ostensibly supported.

Finally, the president directed us to try to put elements of his proposal back into the text. He wanted to explain what he was seeking and to defend it. He especially wanted Americans to know that his plan would likely see a return on the taxpayers' investment. Under his proposal, he said, the federal government would buy troubled mortgages on the cheap and then resell them at a higher price when the market for them stabilized.

"We're buying low and selling high," he kept saying.

The problem was that his proposal didn't work like that. One of the president's staff members anxiously pulled a few of us aside. "The president is misunderstanding this proposal," he warned. "He has the wrong idea in his head." As it turned out, the plan wasn't to buy low and sell high. In some cases, in fact, Secretary Paulson wanted to pay more than the securities were likely worth in order to put more money into the markets as soon as possible. This was not how the president's proposal had been advertised to the public or the Congress. It wasn't that the president didn't understand what his administration wanted to do. It was that the treasury secretary didn't seem to know, changed his mind, had misled the president, or some combination of the three.



Later, Bush rehearsed an address he was going to deliver the country, and was annoyed that his speechwriters hadn't included language about the government plan to "buy low and sell high." Aides tried to explain to the president that he misunderstood his own plan. At that point, Latimer said, "the president was momentarily speechless. He threw up his hands in frustration."

Bush asked his staff, "Why did I sign on to this proposal if I don't understand what it does?"

Remember, this man was president of the United States for eight years. Eight long, painful years, during which, he nearly destroyed the country.
icon url

teapeebubbles

09/18/09 12:05 PM

#67837 RE: laurap #67730

"Joe Wilson is now the only United States congressman to be formally rebuked for speaking out while the president was giving an address. That could explain his Secret Service code name: 'Kanye.' '' -- Jimmy Fallon
icon url

teapeebubbles

09/30/09 9:30 PM

#68080 RE: laurap #67730

NY Post: Palin Lectures Not Selling, No One Wants To Book Her