19 new companies reportedly join Beck ad boycott, bringing total to 80
October 06, 2009 3:10 pm ET by Media Matters staff
From an October 6 ColorofChange.org press release:
ColorOfChange.org has confirmed that 19 new companies whose ads aired recently during Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck program have asked Fox to stop their ads from running or pledged to not to run ads on the show going forward. The latest additions -AmMed Direct, Citrix Online, Concord Music Group, Diageo, Eggland's Best, Equifax, Eulactol USA (producer of Flexitol), GetARoom.com, Hoffman La Roche (maker of BONIVA), Metropolitan Talent Management, ooVoo, Overture Films, Scarguard, Schiff Nutrition (maker of Tiger's Milk and Fi-Bar), Seoul Metropolitan Government, Subaru, Toyota-Lexus, Waitrose and Woodland Power Products, Inc. - bring the total number of companies that have distanced themselves from Beck to 80. This after Beck called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" during an appearance on Fox & Friends.
The news comes on the heels of stories that broke throughout British newspapers on Monday, reporting that advertisers seen during Beck's program in England are feeling the heat as well. Diageo - a London-based alcohol company that makes Guinness, Tanqueray and many other brands of spirits - joined Waitrose - a popular British supermarket chain used to supply groceries to the Royal Family - and cut their advertising ties with Beck. Waitrose, along with the U.S.-based Metropolitan Talent Management, adds to a growing list of companies who are not only taking a stance against Glenn Beck, but against Fox News Channel.
"From the beginning of our campaign, we promised to continue to put pressure on anyone who supports Beck's race-baiting rhetoric," said James Rucker, Executive Director of ColorOfChange.org. "Seeing our efforts resonate in another country gives our members a renewed sense of hope that we can rally together and stand up against racial demagoguery in America."
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Although I have not seen but maybe 2 or 3 of these companies advertise "recently" on Becks show, I sure hope you nutjobs get ALL advertisers to pull their sponsorship. I would LOVE to watch Glenn's show uninterrupted.
Contrary to what you may believe, Fox will NEVER pull a show with those ratings and I really hope it drives you all even more crazy!
BTW - Still haven't seen any "lies" exposed on here, just a lot of trash talking. Go figure.
I sure do not get how it is okay for all the liberals to call all the opposition racists, but somehow not okay for Glenn to say it. HYPOCRITS!
You just did, in this forum. If you keep it clean, you'll likely be able to do so again. This is not hallowed ground. All viewpoints are welcomed here and debates routinely break out between MMFA supporters and detractors.
Why, Willy? Because we can think and you can't?
If you even BOTHERED to read the MMFA Mission Statement, you would see that this site is devoted to highlihgting conservative misinformation. The truth has no view - it's eityher true or false. And when people like Glenn Beck insist on using their electronic podiums to spread hate and lies (and advertisers hold him financially responsible for spreading those lies and hate), it is discussed here.
We're not trying to "silence others" because we disagree with them. We're trying to point out the liars.
Live by the sword die by the sword! I'm LOVIN every minute of it!
Should they be allowed to buy tv commercial time?
Lie, by the way, means someone is intentionally not telling the truth. Not speaking what is true is not lying if you honestly believe it. Even if you said you were a, say, chicken, you might have a hard time asserting that fact but you certainly wouldn't be lying.
If you want to go further you could point out that an overwhelming portion of his sourced statements are not disapproved of. By your definition of lie you could also say "Media Matters overwhelmingly approves <commentator>, only flagging 2% of his material a day!" (in the case of Glenn).
Why doesn't Beck stake his reputation on what he said by repeating it? After all, the boycott is having no effect on the continued existence of his show.
I'm being rhetorical, of course, because Beck's a coward who knows he can't afford to say it again.
Beck is a liar . . . he intentionally lies so that people like you will continue to watch him. The more outrageous his lies against the people you hate . . . the more popular he is. Very simple. He's lying, you're buying, he's laughing and raking in the bucks.
We decide who gets the 1st protection since we won the election and have the votes!
Once Fox relizes they will soon have to spend their profits to keep Beck's nonsense on the air, I hope, will be the day he loses his television exposure.
As George H.W. Bush once said, "I'm a conservative, but I'm not a nut about it." Is it any wonder he didn't make an appearance at the Republican convention last year? He and his ilk are no longer welcome in a party now dominated by the likes of G.W., Romney, and Palin.
If you believe that these folks represent conservatism, then you are sadly mistaken.
On the other hand, saying "The President of the United States is a white-hating racist" is very American.
If you think the president is jumping to conclusions based on race then explain why for the world to hear. And if you think those accusations are wrong then step up and back up your opinion. No commentator or president is not above criticism, if you can explain why.
Beck guest Scheuer: "The only chance we have as a country right now is" for bin Laden to "detonate a major weapon" in U.S.
Beck gives credulous interview to Texas secessionist, who says Tea Parties are a great place to recruit
Three days after warning against violence, Beck tells "Pelosi" he poisoned her wine
And let me tell you something, I really truly believe the reason why - a lot of Americans aren't paying attention to this - is because they…does anybody remember the poem, you know, first they came for the Jews and I didn’t stand up because I wasn’t a Jew? Do you know that - from Germany?
In the end, I think this is the problem. First, they came for the banks. I wasn't a banker. I didn’t really care. I didn't stand up and say anything.
Then they came for the AIG executives. Then they came for the car companies - and I didn't say anything.
Until it gets down to you - most people don't see they are coming for you at some point. You’re on the list. Everybody's on the list."
Besides apparently being oblivious to irony, I wonder what actions you imagine Beck's less-stable, white listeners might decide to take in response to a "racist" President who "hates" them deeply.
Yeah. And Beck has a CHOICE to argue policy rather than possibly inciting an unstable person by lying to them & saying the President of the United States hates them deeply because they're white.
Why do you hate Bill O'Reilly so much? He is the king of all boycotts. He boycotted an entire country - no one else did so it had no affect, unlike the Beck boycott. But, he still tried it.
There is nothing more American than boycotting something you do not like and encouraging others to do the same. You only choose to oppose these boycotts when they are against someone you like (clearly Beck). Why do you think Beck had the right to his opinions (which are numerous and ridiculous) but the American public does not have the right to voice their opinion that Beck's advertisers should not support his nonsense? What is American about believing that Beck's "rights" somehow supercede the public's?
Tell me, kydem, if members of a church decide to protest a Planned Parenthood office--essentially a boycott, since their hope is to prevent the place from doing business--would that be un-American? It matches your own description to a T.
False equivalency? Prove it. Refute it. Don't just make another stupid statement and run away again. If you ever want to earn any respect on these boards, you'll never do it that way.
Silly me, I was under the impression that the free market and voting with your pocketbook were American as apple pie.
Idiots.
Well, if you've convinced yourself that exposure to a lying loony is what's best for you, be sure to let those advertisers know. I happen to believe advertisers should be made aware that truth-challenged hatemongers are not worthy recipients of their advertising dollars.
Best of luck.
IF there are millions of people, as YOU say, who love Glenda, then Glenda should have no problem replacing the advertisers he's lost.
So why are you whining?
I personally, cannot stand Glenda, or his asinine, treasonous comments and would not buy a single product from ANYONE advertising on Glenda's show.
That's no different than turning off the television!
In contrast to Beck's claims that Obama is a dangerous man who hates white people and wants to destroy the country--claims which are not in any way intended to instill fear of Obama into his viewers. Right?
It's hilarious to hear all these whiney Righties wring their hands over Glenn Beck's right to spew his paranoid hatred.
First of all, the First Amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to a national TV show, or to the support of advertisers... so let's get that one out of the way.
Second, where were all these Right Wing defenders of free speech when the Troglodyte Evangelicals boycotted Disney a few years ago? Hmmmmmm?
(Sound of crickets chirping)
I was thinking of putting "[sic]" after each error in punctuation, grammar, spelling, and capitalization, but there were simply far too many. I'll just address one point of your barely-coherent diatribe.
The boycott was started in response to Beck's statement, charging President Obama as being a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred of white people and white culture." Only after the boycott got under way did Beck--rather than doing the grown-up thing and apologizing for his idiocy--start attacking Jones.
You are stating that Beck started by attacking Jones, and that Jones retaliated by having Color of Change (an organization he no longer works for) conduct the boycott. In other words, Flaboy, you have it entirely backward. It's Beck who did something monumentally stupid, and it's Beck who did the cheap and immature retaliating.
If there's a single sane, intelligent person on earth who is a fan of Beck's, I'd be frankly surprised. And if you are one, I'm afraid that hasn't boosted the total.
I will take a pass on dissecting the rest of your rant. "You don't have to eat the whole egg to know it's rotten." --George Bernard Shaw
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909040025
To help you out a little bit more, Beck first went after Van Jones on 7/23/09. He didn't make his offensive comments about Obama until 7/28/09.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/28315/
No, it doesn't prove your point at all. Flaboy claimed that:
a. Beck attacked Jones
b. the boycott began in response
Whereas I claimed, correctly, that it went this way:
a. Beck called Obama a racist
b. the boycott began
c. Beck attacked Jones
You defended Flaboy, and you were wrong.
Obviously, you have limited reading comprehension skills,
Too funny. I leave it to any casual observer here to judge which one of us is better at reading. I'll grant that you're probably brighter than pointofview or proudconservative, but that's not much of a compliment.
so let me help you understand that line. The link indicates that the attacks on Jones increased after the boycott began, which is an indication that Beck's attacks on Jones were ongoing prior to the boycott.
And let me help you understand that the boycott was in response to the attack on Obama, and not on Jones. Even most other neocons know that. Whatever "attacks" there were on Jones before then were relatively minor. One might say, typical Beck.
To help you out a little bit more, Beck first went after Van Jones on 7/23/09. He didn't make his offensive comments about Obama until 7/28/09.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/28315/
Your link provides no such articles. I did a search on the site to find the things you mentioned, but nothing came up. I would guess that you're either pulling things out of the air or, as I mentioned earlier, Beck's mentioning of Jones was insufficient to have ColorofChange take notice.
I already did pay more attention to understanding the facts, which is why I refuted them, kydem's "support" notwithstanding.
I had never heard of either Color of Change nor Van Jones when I voiced my first complaints regarding Beck's racism exhibited on his show on HLN. Shortly after I lodged my complaint in 2008, Beck's contract was not renewed and he moved to Fox. I began writing to Beck's advertisers long before the COC campaign began. I simply asked them if they really wanted this hate-filled, racist man associated with their products. Apparently, 80 of them have decided that they do not.
That's okay. Those advertisers weren't targeting the "We believe the President is a white-hating racist" demographic anyway.
No, and that's because West said Bush doesn't care about black people--not that he "hated" them. That was in the wake of Bush's Katrina debacle.
Probably about as much as when Steve Carlton denied the Holocaust. Most people really didn't care, because they understood that Carlton, like West, is an entertainment figure, and not someone whose main goal is to influence public opinion.
I hope you can appreciate the difference.
----------------------------
The Midnight Review
Mum Is The Word