About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

UPDATED: Despite Air America "blackout," companies support Beck, Dobbs, and Limbaugh

August 12, 2009 10:07 am ET — 191 Comments

Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Lou Dobbs have used their radio and television shows to incite hatred and push wild conspiracy theories, leading several of Beck's advertisers to reportedly pull out of his broadcasts. Many advertisers have nonetheless sponsored these hosts' hate speech in recent weeks, including major corporations and organizations that, in 2006, reportedly requested that ABC Radio Networks not air their advertisements during any Air America programs.

In 2006, companies reportedly requested their ads not run during Air America content

ABC memo: Corporations and organizations "request" that "NONE of their commercials air within AIR AMERICA programming." In October 2006, Media Matters for America obtained an internal ABC Radio Networks memo listing nearly 100 ABC advertisers that reportedly requested that "NONE of their commercials air within AIR AMERICA programming." (Some of those companies later said they were included on ABC's "blackout" list by mistake.) ABC subsequently provided a statement to Media Matters, which read: "It is not uncommon for advertisers and/or agencies to request that their ads run or not run in specific programming environments or dayparts. ABC Radio Networks does not solicit nor encourage these requests from advertisers. If a request is made by an advertiser/and [sic] or agency we make our best effort to comply."

Air America "blackout" in sharp contrast to "commercial success of right-wing talk radio." The New York Times reported at the time that "the advertisers' avoidance of Air America's liberal programming seems pointed when contrasted with the commercial success of right-wing talk radio programs like those of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity." [New York Times, 11/6/06]

Advertisers on Air America "blackout" list have recently sponsored Beck, Dobbs, Limbaugh broadcasts

Despite their appearance on ABC's Air America "blackout" list in 2006, a number of those same advertisers have recently run ads during broadcasts of one or more of the following: Limbaugh's radio show, Beck's Fox News show, Beck's radio show, Dobbs' CNN show, and Dobbs' radio show. These advertisers include:

UPDATE (8/12): Since posting this item, Media Matters has identified and added to the item additional companies and organizations that appeared on the Air America "blackout" list but have nonetheless recently advertised on Dobbs' radio show. They are: Frito-Lay, Office Depot, Visa, the American Heart Association, and the U.S. Navy.

Show

Advertiser

   

Beck Radio

General Electric

 

Farmers Insurance

 

Office Depot

   

Beck TV

Farmers Insurance (see update below)

 

General Electric

 

Nestle (Gerber)

 

Red Lobster*

 

State Farm (see update below)

 

Travelocity** (see update below)

 

U.S. Postal Service

 

Wal-Mart (see update below)

 

Wyeth

   

Dobbs Radio

Bayer

 

Chattem (Gold Bond)

 

Wyeth

  Frito-Lay
  Office Depot
  Visa
  American Heart Association
  U.S. Navy
   

Dobbs TV

Allstate***

 

Bayer

 

U.S. Postal Service

 

Wal-Mart

   

Limbaugh

Home Depot

 

JC Penney

 

Office Depot

   

* Red Lobster reportedly later said that it "has made no decision to not advertise on Air America Radio" and that its "current [2006] marketing does not include any radio advertising."

** Travelocity reportedly said: "There was a simple misunderstanding. We did not intentionally pull our advertising from this program and Travelocity has been removed from that [Air America "blackout"] list."

*** According to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Allstate "said that [it was] on the [Air America "blackout"] list by mistake."

Beck reportedly loses advertisers after calling Obama a "racist"

UPDATE (8/19/2009): Farmer's Insurance: "we ceased placing [ads] on Glenn Beck a week ago." Since the item was last updated, Politico's Michael Calderone has reported that "a Farmers spokesperson confirms" "Farmers Insurance can be added" to the list of companies that "have agreed to pull advertisements from Glenn Beck's television show." From Calderone's blog post:

Already, twenty companies have agreed to pull advertisements from Glenn Beck's television show, within weeks of the Fox host calling Obama "a racist" and saying the president "has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture."

Now, Farmers Insurance can be added to that list, a Farmers spokesperson confirms to POLITICO.

"We advertise on Fox News Channel which places our ads in the Network programming, and we ceased placing on Glenn Beck a week ago," said the spokesperson.

Wal-Mart "pulled ads from the Glenn Beck show on August 3rd"; Travelocity "ha[s] now specifically asked that our ads do not appear during [Beck's] show." Since the item was last updated, ColorofChange.org has issued a press release stating that Wal-Mart and Travelocity, among others, "have confirmed to ColorOfChange.org that they pulled their ads from the controversial Fox News Channel broadcaster's eponymous show." From the press release:

"Walmart [sic (in original)] today confirmed the retailer pulled ads from the Glenn Beck show on August 3rd," said David Tovar, a spokesperson for Wal-Mart, in an email to ColorOfChange.org.

[...]

"We did not specifically place our ad on the show," said Amanda Borichevsky, a spokesperson for Travelocity in an email to ColorOfChange.org. "We buy ads in bulk and then they are placed somewhat randomly. However, we have now specifically asked that our ads do not appear during this show."

In addition, the following comment was posted after this item's initial publication:

I work for a public relations agency representing Travelocity.

To clarify, please note that Travelocity did not specifically place its advertisements on the Glenn Beck program. Simply put, Travelocity buys ads in bulk and then they are placed somewhat randomly.

However, as of Monday Travelocity specifically asked that its ads do not appear during this show.

Thanks,

Michael O'Connor Clarke

UPDATE: State Farm has "taken steps to make sure" it no longer advertises on Beck's show. After posting this item, Media Matters received the following statement from State Farm Insurance:

In response to inquiries concerning State Farm's recent advertisements in the Glenn Beck program, I want to clarify this situation.

We have a policy of not advertising on political or opinion programming. We have corrected this issue and have taken steps to make sure it does not happen again.

Understanding our millions of customers and thousands of associates hold a full spectrum of views on political issues, State Farm has a long-standing practice of not advertising in political discussion programming regardless of a program's political point of view.

Because of the recent situation, State Farm is now evaluating its commercial placement practices to ensure its political issues advertising guidelines are maintained.

Phil Supple
Public Affairs
State Farm Insurance

LexisNexis "suspended further advertising during Mr. Beck's program." From a ColorOfChange.org press release:

Three companies who run ads during Glenn Beck -- NexisLexis-owned Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble and Progressive Insurance -- today distanced themselves from Beck. LexisNexis has pulled its advertising from Beck and says it has no plans to advertise on the program in the future. Both Procter & Gamble and Progressive Insurance called the Beck advertising placements an error that they would correct.

The decision by the three companies comes as over 45,000 ColorOfChange.org members call on advertisers to pull their ads from Glenn Beck after the controversial news host called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" on "Fox & Friends" last week.

"Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention," said John Michaels, Senior Communications Manager at LexisNexis in an email to ColorOfChange.org. "We have suspended further advertising during Mr. Beck's program." [ColorOfChange.org release, 8/6/09]

"GEICO no longer runs any paid advertising spots during Mr. Beck's program." From a subsequent ColorOfChange.org release:

Adding to a growing list of advertisers distancing themselves from controversial Fox News personality Glenn Beck, GEICO has pledged to re-direct their advertisements away from Beck's program on the Fox News Channel. The decision by GEICO comes on the heels of announcements made last week that LexisNexis-owned Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance and SC Johnson were distancing themselves from Beck after the news host called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people."

"On Tuesday, August 4, GEICO instructed its ad buying service to redistribute its inventory of rotational spots on FOX-TV to their other network programs, exclusive of the Glenn Beck program," said a spokesperson for GEICO Corporate Communications in an email to ColorOfChange.org. "As of August 4, GEICO no longer runs any paid advertising spots during Mr. Beck's program." [ColorOfChange.org release, 8/10/09]

"Sargento ads won't be airing during" Beck's Fox show. From an email Sargento sent to Media Matters' Oliver Willis:

We deeply appreciate your reaching out to us and sharing your comments and concerns about Sargento ads appearing during "The Glenn Beck Show." We sat down with the marketing department to talk about it and I learned that we buy time periods not specific programs. But in any event, they've made the decision to exclude that program from our future ad rotation. Simply stated, Sargento ads won't be airing during that show. Again, thanks for contacting us.

Glenn Beck's outrageous commentary

Advertisers on the Air America "blackout" list support Beck. Some of the advertisers that have recently run commercials during Beck's radio program and Fox News show also appeared on the Air America "blackout" list. For Beck's radio program, they include: Farmers Insurance, General Electric, and Office Depot. For Beck's Fox News show, the advertisers include: Farmers Insurance (see update above), General Electric, Nestle (Gerber), Red Lobster, State Farm Insurance (see update above), Travelocity (see update above), the U.S. Postal Service, Wal-Mart (see update above), and Wyeth.

Beck talks about "put[ting] poison" in Speaker Pelosi's wine. On his Fox News show, Beck gave a glass of wine to a person wearing a Pelosi mask, encouraged her to drink it, and then said: "By the way, I put poison in your -- no, I -- I look forward to all the policy discussions that we're supposed to have." [Glenn Beck, 8/6/09]

Beck: Obama is a "racist" and "has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture." Beck said: "This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy -- over and over and over again -- who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture -- I don't know what it is. But you can't sit in a pew with Jeremiah Wright for 20 years and not hear some of that stuff and not have it wash over." He later added, "I'm not saying that he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem. He has a -- this guy is, I believe, a racist. Look at the way -- look at the things he has been surrounded by." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 7/28/09]

Beck: "Everything that is getting pushed through Congress, including this health care bill" is "driven by President Obama's thinking on ... reparations" and his desire to "settle old racial scores." According to Beck, "Everything that is getting pushed through Congress, including this health care bill, are transforming America. And they are all driven by President Obama's thinking on one idea: reparations." Beck later added that Obama's "goal is creating a new America, a new model, a model that will settle old racial scores through new social justice." [Glenn Beck, 7/23/09]

Beck imitates Obama pouring gasoline on "average American"; says, "President Obama, why don't you just set us on fire?" From the April 9 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: So what does Obama do, he says, boy, I'm not -- I'm just out of stuff to do. What else could I possibly do to the American people?

President Obama, why don't you just set us on fire? For the love of Pete, what are you doing? Do you not hear -- do you not hear the cries of people who are saying stop? We would like some sanity in our country for a second!

We didn't vote to lose the republic. We didn't vote for any of this stuff. We voted for change.

[...]

We can disagree with each other on policies, but Good Lord Almighty, man, please. Some of us don't agree with all of the policies. We'd like to have a country left in the end of four years. No need to set us on fire. [Glenn Beck, 4/9/09]

Beck: U.S. government under Bush and Obama moving us "into a system of fascism." Beck said: "I am not saying that Barack Obama is a fascist. I am not saying the Democrats are a fascist. I'm saying the government under Bush and under Obama and under -- under all of the presidents that we've seen, or at least most of the presidents we've seen for quite some time, are slowly but surely moving us away from our republic and into a system of fascism." [Glenn Beck, 4/1/09]

Beck calls Sotomayor a "racist" who "is not that bright" and "divisive." Discussing then-Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Beck said, "I think the woman is a racist. ... I think the woman is not so bright. From what I have heard from people who have worked around her, worked with her ... she's not that bright, and she is a divisive individual." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 5/28/09]

Beck on health care: "This system is going to come out the other side dictorial -- it's going to come out a fascist state." Beck told a caller: "Let me tell you something, the end game ... for Congress and this president -- and I don't know how many members of Congress even realize the game that they are either being used in or a pawn in. But believe me, they'll take ... the universal health care coverage over what ... skin they do have in it. They're going to come out -- this system is going to come out the other side dictorial -- it is going to come out a fascist state." [The Glenn Beck Program, 7/27/09]

Beck: "We are a country that is headed towards socialism, totalitarianism"; "I can't debunk" FEMA camps conspiracy theory. Saying that Eastern European countries "understand freedom," Beck added: "We don't even understand freedom anymore. We are a country that is headed towards socialism, totalitarianism, beyond your wildest imagination. I have to tell you, I'm doing a story tonight that I wanted to debunk these FEMA camps." Beck further stated: "I'm tired of hearing -- I wanted to debunk them. Well, we've now for several days done research on them. I can't debunk them. And we're going to carry the story tonight. ... [I]t is our government. If you trust our government, it's fine. If you have any kind of fear that we might be headed towards a totalitarian state, look out, buckle up. There is something going on in our country that is -- ain't good." [Fox & Friends, 3/3/09] (Beck eventually managed to "debunk" this conspiracy theory.)

Lou Dobbs' outrageous commentary

Advertisers on the Air America "blackout" list support Dobbs. Recent advertisers on Dobbs' radio program who also appeared on the Air America "blackout" list are: Bayer, Chattem (Gold Bond), Wyeth, Frito-Lay, Office Depot, Visa, the American Heart Association, and the U.S. Navy. For Dobbs' CNN show, the recent advertisers who were also on the Air America "blackout" list include: Allstate, Bayer, the U.S. Postal Service, and Wal-Mart.

Dobbs' anti-Obama rant: "I'm moving from being an independent, sir, to being absolutely opposed to ... any policy you could conceive of." From the August 6 broadcast of The Lou Dobbs Show:

DOBBS: Now we're going to be talking at some various points today in rather hushed tones. When you call in, I want you to be very, very careful, because the White House -- the White House apparatus -- is listening. Listening carefully. And all of its supporters are ready to turn you in. Oh my God, it's happening, right before our very ears. Oh my lord. I'm going to speak up just a little bit. What do you think you're doing, Barack Obama? What kind of mindless, churlish, un-American nonsense are you ginning up this time? I'm moving from being an independent, sir, to being absolutely opposed to your -- any policy you could conceive of. I mean, this is getting ridiculous. Who are these idiots who work for you? I know they won you an election, sir, but I have got to tell you. This is ignorance on parade emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania, and these fellows are your responsibility. [United Stations Radio Networks' The Lou Dobbs Show, 8/6/09]

Dobbs has claimed birth certificate provided by Obama is not "the real document." On July 15 on CNN, Dobbs cast doubt on the adequacy of the birth certificate posted by FactCheck.org, saying: "President Obama was born in Hawaii, according to state officials, and copies of his certification of birth -- FactCheck.org, investigating those circumstances prior to the election, and they have a copy of what they say is the original birth certificate posted on their website. It is, in fact, the so-called short form, not the original document. It is really a document saying that the state of Hawaii has the real document in its possession." [CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, 7/15/09]

Dobbs: Obama birth certificate is not "the real deal." On the July 15 broadcast of his radio show, Dobbs claimed that a "long-form" birth certificate -- rather than the document Obama has provided -- is "the real deal," asking: "What do you think? Is President Obama -- should he produce his birth certificate -- the long form, the real deal? Should he be a little more forthcoming?" [The Lou Dobbs Show, 7/15/09]

Dobbs faulted "liberal" media "trying to knock down" birth certificate "issue" and claimed "a certificate of live birth is not a birth certificate." On his July 21 radio show, Dobbs said that "there's certain quarters of the national liberal media that are just absolutely trying to knock down the issue of President Obama's birth certificate -- his certificate of live birth. And it's funny, because this is an issue that I get a lot of calls on from time to time and we -- and what we talk about is the fact that a certificate of live birth is not a birth certificate. It isn't the original document." [The Lou Dobbs Show; 7/21/09]

Dobbs: "I do believe in a national left-wing media conspiracy in which they work in concert and attack like hell." After agreeing with Jim Geraghty's assertion that "[i]n order to discredit you, when you have really legitimate lines of criticism, there is an effort to paint you as something you're not ... a conspiracy theorist, et cetera," Dobbs said: "By the way, they missed the one conspiracy ... that I do believe in. And that is I do believe in a national left-wing media conspiracy in which they work in concert and attack like hell, and they're not even in the slightest embarrassed by their own nonsense and just absolute dishonesty. It's -- it's, to me, without question, and established conspiracy." [The Lou Dobbs Show, 7/23/09]

Dobbs: Obama's policies are "raising new concerns about what many are calling a socialist revolution in prospect -- some say even a risk of totalitarianism." Dobbs claimed Obama's policies are "raising new concerns about what many are calling a socialist revolution in prospect -- some say even a risk of totalitarianism." Dobbs made this assertion while displaying onscreen text reading, "Socialist Revolution." [Lou Dobbs Tonight, 3/31/09]

Dobbs: America is "moving toward a combination of corporate power and political power" that is "disturbingly similar to what we witnessed in Italy in the 1930s." Later on his March 31 CNN show, referring to the Pay for Performance Act, which "would tie pay to performance at companies that have received direct capital investments under the Troubled Asset Relief Program," Dobbs said, "We are moving toward a combination of corporate power and political power that is so disturbingly similar to what we witnessed in Italy in the 1930s, and it's not funny." [Lou Dobbs Tonight, 3/31/09]

Dobbs: Cabinet secretaries are "acting like commissars in the old Soviet Union." On the April 16 broadcast of his radio show, Dobbs said Cabinet secretaries "are acting like commissars in the old Soviet Union," adding that "it's time for them to get rolled back. This is America, and it's not some fascist state." [The Lou Dobbs Show, 4/16/09]

Dobbs: "[W]hat this White House is leading us to is direct confrontation, a physical confrontation." From the August 7 broadcast of The Lou Dobbs Show:

DOBBS: I am pro-labor, by the way, folks. I am pro-business. But I gotta tell you, what this White House is leading us to is direct confrontation, a physical confrontation, and they're going to take -- President Obama will take full responsibility for what happens here. You heard his voice in Virginia. This is a -- I mean, he's -- he's fanning the flames of a mob.

He's not a president trying to bring some sort of sensibility and order to a public debate. This is a guy who didn't want debate, remember? He wanted legislation passed come hell or high water by today. He didn't get it. And the result here is that suddenly dialogue is inconvenient -- oh, my God. This, Mr. President, I'm begging you. Find your senses and lead this nation in a positive and open way, just as you promised in your campaign.

This is thuggery. It is ridiculous to tolerate. Your attack dogs on the left wing are having their way, and you, sir -- you sir now know what is happening, if you did not before. Before, it was on those who worked for you, and the way in which they served you not being in the national interest. Now, Mr. President, this is entirely on you what happens. And it will be -- let me be very clear -- your responsibility. [The Lou Dobbs Show, 8/7/09]

Dobbs warns of mythical "North American Union." Dobbs said on his radio show: "There is an agenda at work here. I truly believe it's all about -- and Barack Obama referred to it in his meetings with [Canadian Prime Minister] Stephen Harper in Ottawa, in which they talked about harmonization. This is an effort, I truly believe, to extend ultimately to the North American Union -- that is, the combination of Mexico, the United States, and Canada. That's underlying much -- that's subtext for much of what is happening. There's no other explanation -- other than outright corruption and utter madness." [The Lou Dobbs Show, 3/3/09]

Rush Limbaugh's outrageous commentary

Advertisers on the Air America "blackout" list support Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh's recent advertisers who also appeared on the Air America "blackout" list include: Home Depot, Office Depot, and JC Penney.

Limbaugh: "Of course I want Obama to fail," and "I hope" the stimulus package "prolongs the recession." Limbaugh said on February 13: "Of course I want Obama to fail. And after this stimulus bill package passes, I want it to fail." Limbaugh later stated: "Not only do I want Obama to fail, I want this package to fail. I want this to blow up in their face. I want this to be seen by the American people for what it is -- nothing to do with getting them jobs, nothing to do with reviving the gross domestic product of this country." Referring to the economic recovery plan, Limbaugh said: "I hope it prolongs the recession." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show; 2/13/09]

Limbaugh on Obama: "We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black." On January 21, referring to media coverage of Obama, Limbaugh said: "We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president." [Fox News' Hannity, 1/21/09]

Limbaugh discusses "the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi Party in Germany." From the August 6 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: They accuse of us being Nazis, and Obama's got a health care logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook. Now, what are the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi Party in Germany? Well, the Nazis were against big business. They hated big business. And, of course, we all know that they were opposed to Jewish capitalism.

They were insanely, irrationally against pollution. They were for two years mandatory voluntary service to Germany. They had a whole bunch of make-work projects to keep people working, one of which was the Autobahn. They were against cruelty and vivisection of animals. But in the radical sense of devaluing human life, they banned smoking. They were totally against that. They were for abortion and euthanasia of the undesirables, as we all know, and they were for cradle-to-grave nationalized health care.

This is why I have always bristled when I hear people claim that conservatism gets close to Nazism. It is liberalism that's the closest you can get to Nazism and socialism. It's all bundled up under the socialist banner. There are far more similarities between Nancy Pelosi and Adolf Hitler than between these people showing up at town halls to protest a Hitler-like policy that's being heralded by a Hitler-like logo.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Oh, another similarity: Obama is asking citizens to rat each other out like Hitler did. Obama's the one that's got the snitch website right out of the White House -- flag@whitehouse.com -- asking citizens to report people who are saying weird, odd things. You know, the White House response: "No, no, no, we're not taking names here. We're not taking names. We're just taking people who are putting up faulty arguments and refuting them." Well, that's not the intention. Ted Kennedy's dad, by the way, Joe Kennedy, sympathetic to Hitler, sympathetic to the Nazis. [The Rush Limbaugh Show; 8/06/09]

Limbaugh: "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate." Limbaugh also said on August 6: "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate. His Cabinet only met once -- one day. That was it. Hitler said he didn't need to meet with his Cabinet; he represented the will of the people. He was called the messiah. He said the people spoke through him." [The Rush Limbaugh Show; 8/06/09]

Hours before it turned violent, Limbaugh warned listeners that Obama "mobilized union thugs" for Tampa town hall. On August 6, hours before violence broke out at Rep. Kathy Castor's (D-FL) town hall meeting, Limbaugh said on his radio show: "This is from my buddy Erick Erickson at RedState.com: 'Trying to avoid middle class workers opposed to ObamaCare, Congresswoman Kathy Castor, Democrat-Florida, has scheduled a last-minute town hall for tonight -- she wasn't going to have one. She will be surrounded by union goons from the Service Employees International Union to feed middle class voters to alligators if they dare criticize ObamaCare.' " Limbaugh continued: "This is what's happened. Obama has mobilized union thugs to go out and also attend these town meetings to intimidate the genuine citizens out there who are upset about this. ... Those are paid active -- paid activists are going to be showing up. And that's why -- so the Democrats are going to get brave now. So they're going to have protection. Their -- the mob's showing up. The real genuine mob is showing up to protect these Democrats from the unruly Nazis that are showing up to protest the health care bill." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/06/09]

Limbaugh: "ObamaCare is the end of the United States as we know it." On July 28, Limbaugh said, "This -- ObamaCare is ballgame. ObamaCare is the end of the United States as we know it; it's not just the end of health care as you know it. With government-run health care, every aspect of our lives will be regulated as it relates to the cost of health care." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/28/09]

Limbaugh: Sotomayor is "a reverse racist"; Obama is "the greatest living example of a reverse racist." On May 26, Limbaugh said, "So, here you have a racist. You might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist. And the libs, of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/26/09]

Limbaugh: "Barack Obama has yet to have to prove he's a citizen. All he'd have to do is show a birth certificate." On July 20, Limbaugh stated: "Barack Obama has yet to have to prove he's a citizen. All he'd have to do is show a birth certificate. He has yet to have to prove he's -- I have to show them 14 different ways where the hell I am every day of the year for three years." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/20/09]

Limbaugh: "God does not have a birth certificate. Neither does Obama." On June 10, Limbaugh said, "Hey, Mr. Snerdley, you know, a lot of people talk about Obama and his messianic complex. He does have one thing in common with God. Barack Obama has one thing in common with God. Do you know what it is? God does not have a birth certificate either. ... God does not have a birth certificate. Neither does Obama -- not that we've seen." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/10/09]

Limbaugh: "Obama's entire economic program is reparations." On June 22, Limbaugh stated: "What they don't know is that in -- Obama's entire economic program is reparations. If I were [Al] Sharpton, if I'd been guest-hosting Sharpton's show and I got a call like that, somebody complaining, I'd say, 'No, don't do -- hey, hey, hey, shh, shh, let me tell you the truth here. Everything in the stimulus plan, every plan he's got is reparations. He's going to take from the rich -- he's going to take from them, he's going to give it to you. It's just can't happen overnight. Be patient.' That's what's -- redistribution of wealth, reparations, returning the nation's wealth to its rightful owners, whatever you want to call it. It's reparations." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/22/09]

Limbaugh: Obama "wants to pay people to kill some of us before we are born and before we are ready to die." Limbaugh also said on the August 22 broadcast of his show: "By the way, here's another way to look at it. We've learned that elective abortions -- Peter Orszag, the budget director, said, 'No, I can't -- the elective abortions -- I can't say that they're not going to be paid for.' Elective abortions will be covered in Obama health care. So, the way to explain this to people is that President Obama, of the compassionate Democrat Party, wants to provide cover for those who kill us before we are born. He wants to pay people to kill some of us before we are born and before we're ready to die after we are born. It's called 'efficiency.' " [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/22/09]

Limbaugh: Obama sending out "union thugs," involved in "Mussolini-type stuff." On August 7, Limbaugh stated: "Obama sends out his army. You gotta -- folks, this is -- this Mussolini-type stuff. This is the president of the United States -- who cannot deal with opposition. There will not be any. He is going to silence it -- sending his union thugs out to physically assault in some cases and to, in all cases, intimidate average Americans who just want some answers." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/07/09]

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (August 12, 2009 10:13 am ET)
      16 8
      This is an excellent start, but needs to be expanded upon by including all sponsors of all right-wing propaganda programming, so we know where and where not to take our dollars. Maybe if Wyeth, GE, and so on start publicly losing customers they might decide that lliberals are people too...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ucjb (August 12, 2009 12:14 pm ET)
        10 21
        "This is an excellent start, but needs to be expanded upon by including all sponsors of all right-wing propaganda programming,"

        Yeah, cause free speech sucks.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by seniorspartan (August 12, 2009 1:54 pm ET)
          16 3
          Glenn Beck is free to speak all he wants. Advertisers have the right to decide if they want to support his speech with THEIR money. But even if he loses every advertiser he is free to spew his garbage on Fox or any other news outlet. But, I am free to tell advertisers of his show that I will stop buying their product if they continue to support him.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (August 12, 2009 9:30 pm ET)
            1 11
            I personally really appreciate MMFA's lists. It tells me what businesses I don't want to support - those that will not support guys like Beck & Limbaugh. I've used them before to thank radio stations for running guys like Limbaugh - MMFA provided the e-mail addresses :)
            Report Abuse
            • Author by markbfoot199 (August 13, 2009 10:49 am ET)
              3 9
              I agree thanks MMFA, See you all later, off to Office depot to get some supplies and Red Lobster for lunch, I will ask for the Beck Special.

              ColorOfChange.org is that a Mob also? Now I am sure they are getting money from somewhere, just need to look deeper. Talk about manufactured protest.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 13, 2009 1:27 pm ET)
                6  
                Wow. Ed and markb are actually bragging about their lives being run by Beck and Limbaugh. The right-wing has really jumped the shark when they are not only bragging about believing whatever their radio/TV entertainers disguised as political leaders tell them but also buying whatever products they are pimping during their shows. Truly remarkable. Enjoy the gold!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by markbfoot199 (August 13, 2009 4:17 pm ET)
                  3 10
                  Ed Schultz - Liberal radio talk show host says right-wing talkers and conservatives want to see Obama "get shot."

                  Wow, so you are sitting here looking at a list of who to boycott and tell me that I live by others, ha ha please I am hurt from laughing so hard at you. I will support them just to counter balance you. Second Color for Change is an organization that was co founed by a current White House Czar, so in a nut shell the White House is behind this boycott. Last, I used the headline above to ask, what companies Ed Schultz has on his show, cause if you are going to boycott the others you should boycott his, since he has made the worse statement yet.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mary59 (August 13, 2009 8:22 pm ET)
                    6  
                    Now tell the truth. You're not going to run anywhere but back to your little 'ole keyboard to type up some more crabby swill.

                    OOOOh that meanie Ed Schultz...how dare he highlight what the righty talkers have been saying (Nazi, hates America, racist, not born in U.S., bring your guns, etc)
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by worrierking (August 13, 2009 3:31 pm ET)
                5 1
                Thank God for life on the coasts.

                We eat real seafood here, not the inedible crap you're running out to get from Red Lobster.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by puppienrainbows (August 14, 2009 9:16 pm ET)
              2 8
              Thanks MMFA, for the comprehensive list of sponsors for Glenn Beck. I will lend a concerted effort to increase the volume of their sales and will support those products based on nothing more than the willingness, by the left, to silence a critic. Glenn Beck will no doubt survive this tactic because people with I.Q.s over 100 appreciate his mockery of the Obama administration. Mockery that is well deserved.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mary59 (August 14, 2009 11:36 pm ET)
                5 2
                You really are a dim bulb...silencing a critic? Boycotting is free speech too. He can blather on all he wants, and we're free to notice who advertises on his show and not patronize them.

                If you like Glen beck, seriously, I wonder where all your brain cells went.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by Evil Conservative (August 14, 2009 11:18 am ET)
            2 7
            I wonder why companies would want to hurt themselves? They dropped their advertising because of a petition with just over 75,000 signers? Are they crazy? Beck has millions of listeners/watchers? You don't think the ability of our President to fire CEO's if companies seek the governments help in a financial crisis has anything to do with that do you? You guys really need to read Atlas Shrugged. I love how you guys always think the answer to preventing corporate corruption in government is to bring corporations into a closer relationship with the government. Of course none you guys ever make sense anyways.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (August 14, 2009 12:08 pm ET)
              3 1
              What are you talking about? You really think that this has any bearing on the concept of an inept CEO being fired in order for a company to get government help? I don't see the argument that a CEO shouldn't get kicked out under those circumstances, since that person would be playing with taxpayer money. Since that makes perfect sense all on its own, I don't see the need to assume that there's any other factor such as advertising choices involved at all.

              And please explain to me what you recommend, anyway. If you were dealing with some irresponsible, unhinged liberal who had millions of viewers, you surely wouldn't want the government to fix that. Now, you don't want anyone to be able to boycott the advertisers. What's left?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Evil Conservative (August 14, 2009 1:19 pm ET)
                3 7
                That's why GM shouldn't be playing with taxpayer money. If Bush would have fired a CEO you and I both would have crapped a Hummer. But Obama does it and your ready to buy one to support your dear leader.

                As far as dealing with some irresponsible, unhinged liberal who had millions of viewers...luckily do to the free market system being in place I won't have to worry about that right now. I guess Keith Olbermann would be the closest thing to an unhinged liberal receiving millions of viewers. Although I don't know if he reaches that many viewers yet. But either way I don't want the government to touch him. The American people can fix stuff themselves...they don't watch him and so I'm sure their are plenty of advertisers who just don't waste their good hard earned marketing dollars to advertise during his "PRIMETIME" time slot. Ok, I sometimes watch him. So anyways I know it's hard to grasp that more people think like I do and Glenn Beck than you and Keith Olbermann but that's how it works. For now. Big Corporations are selfish entities...their goal is profit(or big bad greed)to survive. So when corporations do something that actually has a negative affect on their company disproportionately then you have to ask "what's in it for them?". They are not going to make more money by not advertising on Beck they are going to make less. I know you see all corporations as wonderful rainbow makers now that Obama is in charge but trust me their not. So I'm not giving you an answer...just giving you a question you should be asking.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (August 14, 2009 2:48 pm ET)
                  5 1
                  I don't know why I would be angry with Bush over saying that a company can't receive government help with an incompetent CEO remaining in charge. That just doesn't make any sense. You don't promise the money if you have someone in control that can't handle it, no matter who is in office.

                  I know the government shouldn't be involved. You say that people can fix stuff, but isn't bringing Beck's insanity to the companies attention exactly that? Don't you think it's reasonable that they wouldn't want to be associated with someone as extreme as he is? I don't think you're seeing the full picture here. Let's say you have a rabid, unapologetic racist on the air. He might have several million loyal viewers. Is advertising on that show a profitable idea? Probably not, because you're going to have an awful lot of people who are going to make a lot of noise against the show, and by extension, against you. So in this situation advertisers have to ask themselves if they want to be associated with this nut, and whether the number of viewers makes that association worthwhile or not. After all, there are other shows to advertise on, and there could also be someone who replaces Beck who would also make for profitable advertising without the backlash.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Evil Conservative (August 14, 2009 4:55 pm ET)
                    3 8
                    If people don't like your ideas you won't have good ratings. If people like your ideas you will have good ratings. If you have good ratings companies will want to advertise. If you have bad ratings companies will not want to advertise. Then companies are rewarded respectively based on their decisions. These companies are doing something that has a direct negative affect to them hinged on a belief that the majority does not believe. So all I'm saying is the fact that an adviser to the current president is a co-founder of an organization now trying get one of the President's, and his advisers, harshest critics off the air. It might be nothing but the appearance of impropriety is there...but it is Chicago politics. So whip out your WWITIBWIO(What would I think if Bush was in office) bracelet and just ask yourself the question if you would find that appropriate. If you can beat the person with ideas there is no need to use a "manufactured mob" like Color of Change to frighten advertisers.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Brabantio (August 14, 2009 5:15 pm ET)
                      6 2
                      No, it's not that simple. I provided a very clear example showing why. You wouldn't want to be associated with a racist, because that tarnishes your product name. You could have ten million racist viewers, and they'd love your ideas. Two hundred and ninety million people could hate your guts, but you'd still have great ratings. Nobody would want to advertise on that show, though, for very understandable reasons.

                      I'm not sure how you think that Beck's audience is really interested in a battle of ideas. This is a guy who claimed that symbols in our nation's history are based on Fascism, while those symbols were around before Fascism was. So are the people who buy into that brand of idiocy really going to switch to another channel because someone's beating Beck with ideas? Apparently not.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 15, 2009 9:28 am ET)
                      4 1
                      Do you have any of your own thoughts?Can you think of anything on your own.You know there are people who get paid to repeat the same garbage as you.But you don't get paid a dime.You remind me of a trick I used to play on my cousins when I was a kid and had to cut grass.I would bet them something like a quarter one could not push the lawn mower faster than the other.I'd get my work done for about 75 cents,that I got paid 10 dollars for.a A couple of times they paid me so they could race.I got it formTtom Sawyer.Don't you see a very close simularity to this in the things you say do and write.And since you are into name calling DUMB CONSERVATIVE
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 15, 2009 9:09 am ET)
              4 1
              Generel Motors executives should have been fired a long time ago.They looted GM for short term gains,and bonuses,then blamed it on high paid union workers.The so called high paid union workers are the lowest paid people working there.You would probably take a pay cut so executives can get a raise and bonus,say something like it's free enterprise.The worker and the executive are employees,both needed to run a plant.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 15, 2009 9:09 am ET)
              1 1
              Generel Motors executives should have been fired a long time ago.They looted GM for short term gains,and bonuses,then blamed it on high paid union workers.The so called high paid union workers are the lowest paid people working there.You would probably take a pay cut so executives can get a raise and bonus,say something like it's free enterprise.The worker and the executive are employees,both needed to run a plant.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (August 12, 2009 4:19 pm ET)
          7 17
          Isn't it interesting how they mock O'Reilly when he calls for boycotts. It would seem that now they support that method. It kind of reminds me of their stands on protest, it is un-American when done by the right but perfectly acceptable when done by the left. They defend the left wing loons who say objectionable things, but Beck, Dobbs, Hannity, O'Reilly etc should be taken off the air.

          Funny how that works.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Craig (August 12, 2009 4:41 pm ET)
            14 3
            I don't recall O'Reilly being mocked for calling for boycotts. He's definitely been mocked for falsely claiming his boycott of France cost them billions, and that this was reported in the nonexistant Paris Business Review.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by fairliberal (August 12, 2009 8:07 pm ET)
              3 19
              O'Reilly was mocked many times on this site for calling for his boycott of France. Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

              And do you mean this nonexistant Paris Business Review?

              http://www.parisbusinessreview.net/sites/PBR/contact.asp
              MMFA claimed it was nonexistant and said that after a search they could not find any record of it but obviously they were dead wrong. Weren't they?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Craig (August 12, 2009 8:46 pm ET)
                12 1
                Hahahaha! Did you check any of the content on that site?

                Thanks for making my day.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by jmille426471 (August 12, 2009 9:05 pm ET)
                  9  
                  The website's stated purpose; fictional facts for wrong-headed right wingers.

                  No wonder failcon likes it so much.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by fairliberal (August 12, 2009 9:24 pm ET)
                  2 18
                  Of course I did, but it does show that MMFA did not know what they were talking about. They acknowledged saying what O'Reilly claimed they said but said it was a joke. My best guess is that an O'Reilly staffer stumbled across it and gave it to him, he should have checked it out more. But they did say what he claimed and MMFA was dead wrong in claiming it did not exist. Period, end of story, you can see it yourself. Do you believe your own eyes or MMFA?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jmille426471 (August 12, 2009 9:48 pm ET)
                    14 1
                    Sorry, my friend, you clearly didn't. If you had, you would know that the website was a response to O'reilly's made-up Paris business daily, which the website didn't exist at the time when he made it up.

                    And anyways there is of course nothing dishonest about sighting a parody website to support his claims about his proposed boycotts.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by Craig (August 12, 2009 9:49 pm ET)
                    17 1
                    You're a peach. I keep forgetting you guys don't get things.

                    [http://www.parisbusinessreview.net/sites/PBR/images/Paris_Business_Review_OReilly.jpg]
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Slinkie (August 14, 2009 1:32 pm ET)
                      5 1
                      Craig
                      don,t worry about neo-cons getting things or learning something new it goes against their philosophy which is to remain ignorant at all cost after all if they learned the truth they would have to admit they are wrong and GOD forbid a neo-con admitting they are wrong
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (August 13, 2009 12:22 am ET)
                    11  
                    How about the line "the web presence of the quintessential, underground, Parisian business quarterly". Underground? It's poking fun at the fact that it doesn't exist, that it can't be found.

                    And "Fictional facts for wrong-Headed right-Wingers". Was that supposed to be on the page when O'Reilly's staffer was reading it? Did you notice the bit about "Two Peabody awards"? Does the fact that they tell you to expect a complete on-line presence by Fall 2004 strike you as a little bit odd?

                    Apparently, we're supposed to believe that this was something that was really putting out articles, and then as soon as O'Reilly quoted their April Fools article, they never published anything again. They just made the whole webpage a reference to O'Reilly and called it quits.

                    But even that unlikely scenario doesn't fly. Don't you think that if the physical magazine existed since 1951 (or ever, really), that there would be many, many references generated while googling it? I used to edit a magazine that I can pretty much guarantee nobody here would have ever heard of. But when I google that publication, I can see clear and abundant evidence of its existence. Googling "Paris Business Review" does not lead you to any evidence of an actual, physical magazine. There is no "as published in the Paris Business Review in 1975..." or "old copies of the Paris Business Review" or anything of the sort. There isn't even any reference to anything ever published in the online magazine, as far as I saw, and there would surely be some traces left from articles referenced on other sites. Can you find the "Poor Little France" article, or any reference to it besides this webpage? And since that page supposedly came about on April 1st, 2004, the same day as this elusive article was published, why the hell wouldn't it be put online and linked on that page?

                    MMfA probably didn't mention that website because it is more than obvious that it was created for the sole purpose of mocking O'Reilly's reference to a nonexistent magazine. They probably put a few seconds worth of thought into it.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 13, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
                      9  
                      Isn't his pricelss. Please, EVERYONE, go this site that "fair"-liberal posted and see what she thinks supports her argument. This is truly wonderful. And she continues to dig the whole deeper. This just makes my week.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by Truth Crusader (August 13, 2009 1:58 pm ET)
                    11 1
                    Wow, fairliberal! Epic, epic, EPIC fail!!! I've typed "can't stop laughing" before when I really could...but this time, I REALLY can't stop laughing!

                    PLEASE folks...PLEASE go to this "source" that fairliberal is citing to back up his argument!

                    Wow!
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 13, 2009 1:30 pm ET)
                7  
                "Fair"-liberal please go to that site you posted. In fact, EVERYONE go to the site "fair"-liberal posted. This says all you will ever need to know about "fair"-liberal and her links that she posts to support her invalid claims. Truly, truly priceless.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (August 13, 2009 2:08 pm ET)
                  8 1
                  She brought up this point a little while ago as well, but never explained herself. I was wondering if she was really referring to that website, but couldn't believe it was possible.

                  Something else I didn't think of earlier;even the title "Poor Little France" is so unbelievably sarcastic that it should be obvious that it's not the title of an article posted in a French business journal. It's clearly mocking the ineffectiveness of O'Reilly's boycott, along with his inflated ego.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by rangerphil (August 14, 2009 11:04 am ET)
                4  
                You're kidding, right? Do you really not understand that this links to a spoof site explicitly to mock O'Really?
                Report Abuse
          • Author by bip84124092 (August 12, 2009 8:54 pm ET)
            9 2
            There is no comparison. You right wingers have had a good ride playing the "liberal media" game. In the run up to the war no one would advertise on anything progressive for fear of being labeled "unpatriotic". You don't support the troops. They couldn't even have liberal guests on TV shows. Phil Donahue had to go because he dared to have a different point of view. Every liberal voice was drowned out. That by the way was GE.
            These right wing hacks have made their careers on attacking and destroying people based on their hypocritical moral judgements. Playing on the fears of poor losers who need to feel someone else is beneath them. So save your lame argument. What's the problem? They'll always have Fox, they don't need no stinkin' advertisers.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (August 13, 2009 3:35 pm ET)
            8 1
            Once again, you don't get it.

            O'Reilly was trying to boycott a country because they wouldn't go along with the lies the Bush administration used to drag the rest of us into the Maelstrom.

            No one is suggesting that anyone be taken off the air. But in this country we value the free market. And just like you, we'll spend our money where it's appreciated.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by creeksneakers2 (August 13, 2009 8:49 pm ET)
            8 1
            Right and Left don't equate. The left isn't spreading lies and hatred and inflamming stupid people into mob actions and even violence. If somebody on the left did, he would be taken off the air in seconds.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Evil Conservative (August 14, 2009 11:47 am ET)
              1 7
              Ok, you mock fairliberal rightfully so...but you don't mock creeksneakers2 for this above? How many fake websites did they go to? It's the only way you can write that without knowing you're lying. Does this person not have a TV or youtube.com? And by the way creeksneakers2 on the left if you inflame stupid people into mobs you don't get taken off the air you get elected President.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (August 14, 2009 12:20 pm ET)
                4  
                So we should mock creeksneakers because you're assuming that he's visiting fake websites because you disagree with him?

                Sure, we'll all get right on that. Stay tuned.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Evil Conservative (August 14, 2009 1:22 pm ET)
                  1 5
                  I'm not disagreeing with him...what that person is saying is not accurate and factual.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (August 14, 2009 2:51 pm ET)
                    4  
                    Because you think Messina was instigating violence while speaking privately with Senators, or what? I have no way of knowing what the hell you're talking about. If that's what you're referring to, there's no "factual" basis for what you said there.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Evil Conservative (August 14, 2009 5:04 pm ET)
                      1 5
                      Right and Left don't equate. The left isn't spreading lies and hatred and inflamming stupid people into mob actions and even violence. If somebody on the left did, he would be taken off the air in seconds.

                      All I'm saying is that this sentence right here is incorrect. One more time...right above me...this statement by creeksneakers is not true. It's like when you have a test and you're get to the true and false portion and the question was presented as so:

                      Right and Left don't equate. The left isn't spreading lies and hatred and inflamming stupid people into mob actions and even violence. If somebody on the left did, he would be taken off the air in seconds.

                      In order to receive a correct grade on that particular question you would have to circle the false option or bubble it in for those using scantrons.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Brabantio (August 14, 2009 5:18 pm ET)
                        3  
                        Again, what the hell are you talking about? Why is it not true, outside of your say-so?
                        Report Abuse
        • Author by jmille426471 (August 12, 2009 9:01 pm ET)
          6 1
          Ahem,

          Feel free to explain how boycotting someone's sponsors violates their free speech.

          Boy, conservatives sure are desparate to feel like martyrs....
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bandofotters (August 13, 2009 1:15 pm ET)
              6
            I agree. Boycotts do not violate free speech. They just show the contempt that one has for someone who expresses it along with an over attempt in preventing it from happening again.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mary59 (August 14, 2009 10:28 am ET)
              6  
              Untrue. Lots of moms boycotted Nestle in the 70's because of their practice of sending women dressed to look like nurses into hospitals in poor countries with formula samples. This was a ploy to convince the women to not breastfeed their babies and instead buy Nestle formula. When they of necessity diluted the formula because of poverty, their babies got sick and many died. Now was this boycott because the women had "contempt for free speech"?
              Irresponsibility breeds its own consequences. A boycott is also "free speech." And truly "free speech" proceeds from clear thinking and pure intent.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by markbfoot199 (August 13, 2009 1:20 pm ET)
            2 1
            Van Jones is the Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
            Jones is the founder of Green For All, an organization focused on creating green jobs in impoverished areas. He is also the co-founder of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Color of Change, and was the author of the 2008 New York Times best-seller, The Green Collar Economy.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (August 12, 2009 12:15 pm ET)
        11 1
        GE is the leading weapons contractor.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by yber26 (August 12, 2009 1:18 pm ET)
          4 8
          "GE is the leading weapons contractor"

          And a major contributor to President Obama's campainge.
          And dont they have somtthing to with MSNBC ?

          Are the jumping ship, or just want the best of both worlds.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (August 12, 2009 2:23 pm ET)
            12 1
            They did contribute to Obama's champagne. Unfortunately, corporate money flows like bubbly to all the political candidates, so don't single out one. In fact, most of his money came from small donations.

            More to the point--GE owning media AND being a war contractor is disconcerting to say the least.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by neon desert (August 12, 2009 5:49 pm ET)
              7  
              I'm not partial to portuguese wines, but I happen to be enjoying a nice GE madeira with my war right now, and I'm not disconcerted at all.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by jmille426471 (August 12, 2009 9:10 pm ET)
            3  
            Because everyone knows that a massive conglomerate corporation with arms deals of questionable legality would have a powerful incentive for its news station to have a liberal slant in its coverage.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (August 12, 2009 2:12 pm ET)
          5 14
          Yes, and a company that was doing business with our enemies and aiding in the killing of US soldiers. But that is OK, they were doing it through an intermediary.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Craig (August 12, 2009 4:45 pm ET)
            11 1
            Like Halliburton. And legally, during the Bush administration with a Republican majority in Congress.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by fairliberal (August 12, 2009 8:12 pm ET)
              1 11
              And that makes it right?

              And now GE is doing it legally with a Dimocratic majority in Congress. A much larger majority.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by jmille426471 (August 12, 2009 9:14 pm ET)
                8 1
                Good to know Republicans are finally concerned about all the taxpayer dollars being embezzeled by military contractors.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Evil Conservative (August 14, 2009 12:10 pm ET)
                  1 7
                  Good to know you aren't worried about it now that the one is in office.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jmille426471 (August 14, 2009 6:06 pm ET)
                    6  
                    Actually, if GE did anything illegal i'd love to pack our jail cells with their executives. Along with the other pirates in Iraq, the banksters who sold mortages they knew were worthless and the super-wealthy tax evaders with Swiss bank accounts. I just wanted to make sure you were on board with all that. Thats all.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by Craig (August 12, 2009 9:16 pm ET)
                3  
                No, I don't think companies should be doing business with oppressive regimes. Unfortunately, the big companies that do it have a great deal of influence over our government.

                FYI, GE reportedly stopped doing business in Iran a couple of years ago. Same with Halliburton.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by Slinkie (August 14, 2009 1:50 pm ET)
            3  
            you neo-cons want to point fingers about who funds are enemies but yet you ignore bushies family funding of Hitler & his cronies bush jr wanting to sell fighter jet parts to Iran while he is ramping up the war talk against them I would like to hear one conservative admit the truth about the two wars we are engaged in now that the only reason weare there has nothing to do with our security but was an exchange of blood for oil after all any honest republican will tell you the middle class & the working class are nothing more than cannon fodder
            Report Abuse
      • Author by yrogerg1 (August 13, 2009 9:40 am ET)
        6 1
        This is not free speech. This is propaganda. People are starting to show up at these town halls with guns. They are sending death threats. Three people on Monday were found with guns at an Obama event. They are using our airwaves to spread these lies and its time for the FCC to pull their license!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bandofotters (August 13, 2009 1:18 pm ET)
          1 7
          The people with guns who are exersizing their 2nd Amendment right are not the same people sending death threats unless you can show otherwise.

          How many people at these rallies had car keys?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by markbfoot199 (August 13, 2009 1:24 pm ET)
          2 9
          Yrogerg, hey,sorry to give you the bad news, but guns are not illegal. More so in the State of N.H. you can carry a gun in public. Read the Second Admendment. "A well regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (August 13, 2009 1:47 pm ET)
            9 1
            Are you really arguing that carrying a gun into a town hall event is appropriate? Nobody said they were illegal, it's just disturbing.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by political_left-religious_right (August 13, 2009 6:05 pm ET)
              6  
              I also wasn't aware that a few crackpots at a town hall constituted a "a well-regulated militia."
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Evil Conservative (August 14, 2009 12:06 pm ET)
              1 6
              I take my cell phone into the movie theater but I have ways of putting it on silent.

              It might be disturbing to you but luckily we vote people into office to represent us and protect our rights so we don't have stop doing things you find disturbing.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (August 14, 2009 12:13 pm ET)
                4  
                You're conflating "irritating" with "troubling". A gun is slightly more dangerous than a cell phone.

                And again, not everything is a legal issue. You can leer at women on the subway, but it's still not appropriate. You can continue to do it if you like, but people will find you creepy. Is this clear now?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Evil Conservative (August 14, 2009 12:57 pm ET)
                  1 6
                  No. Again it doesn't matter if you find it creepy or troubling thank God. I don't even own a gun...I just like our constitution and stuff. I think the gun is only as dangerous as the owner. We have to stop punishing the instruments and punish people appropriately.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (August 14, 2009 2:59 pm ET)
                    6  
                    And we have no way of knowing how dangerous the owner is in these cases. That's what makes it troubling.

                    I don't know how to make it any clearer that we're not talking about a legal issue here. Why you think "punishing" is relevant is a mystery. It does matter if you appear to be creepy because you're going to damage your party. If you guys wore hockey masks and smocks covered in fake blood while carrying fake chainsaws at your national convention, that would be legal. It wouldn't exactly inspire the centrists to vote for you, though. Carrying guns into town hall events makes you look like violent extremists.

                    Unclench your white-knuckled fingers from your gun and relax. Nobody's trying to confiscate your guns. It's just good advice. OK?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Brabantio (August 14, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
                      5  
                      BTW, I do realize you said you don't own a gun. The last line was meant collectively for Second Amendment enthusiasts. I say something as basic as "you shouldn't carry a gun into a town hall event" and I get a speech about rights. Is there anything that can be said about propriety of gun handling or carrying that won't get a knee-jerk response about the Constitution?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Evil Conservative (August 14, 2009 4:01 pm ET)
                        2 6
                        You're right...but the reason we will never see eye to eye on this is because of our respective perceptions of gun owners. You parallel gun owners with guys straight out of a Hollywood horror films and I don't. So we will let the people decide who's perception is correct. Oh and I don't know who you're talking about when you say "you guys" or "your party" and "your national convention".
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Brabantio (August 14, 2009 4:34 pm ET)
                          4  
                          No, I don't parallel anything of the sort. I'm using an extreme example to illustrate a point. You said it didn't matter, and I'm saying that perception makes a difference.

                          I'm talking about Republicans and conservatives. If you vote for a third party, then it doesn't apply to you.
                          Report Abuse
      • Author by angryofmayfair61 (August 14, 2009 1:00 pm ET)
        1 3
        I guess we will be able to listen to NPR and watch NBC. Arent they both run by Obama?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotshark (August 12, 2009 10:20 am ET)
      6 3
      Yes this is a good start

      we need more!!!!

      what you get went you drop 100 lawyers into Santa Monica bay??
      " A good start"
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Cannonball (August 12, 2009 3:09 pm ET)
        8 1
        Your insult to lawyers is ignorant and unrelated to the topic of this string. But, I'm sure that when you need a lawyer, you'll just represent yourself. BTW, lawyers are responsible for the development our form of government, your civil rights, the criminal code that protects you, the international treaties that encourage global initiatives and protections,and many more usefull and practical improvements to our society. Why don't you pick on some other convenient stereotype next time.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pilotshark (August 12, 2009 3:42 pm ET)
          1 1
          well lighten up and relax.

          humor is the best medicine

          guessing you wouldnt like the one about why sharks leave lawyers alone in the water Professional curtsied
          but really you need to take a chill pill.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by pongotwistleton (August 12, 2009 4:00 pm ET)
          4 4
          Lawyers are a pack of overpaid thieves. They developed and maintained an insiders game in which a swamp of procedural bs, combined with their unwarranted estimation of their importance and quality, precludes the everyday citizen from redressing their grievances in court. Judges are members of the bar and therefore look askance at the peon citizens who, according to their honors' inflated egos, can't possibily understand the bs legalese without having sat in lawschool for three years doing absolutely nothing productive. I got news for you, lawyers of the Thomas Jefferson days, or even the Clarence Darrow days, are long gone. The profession nowadays is consumed with their lazy offspring out to make an easy dollar.

          Of course a layman must hire a lawyer to bring any kind of claim, or assert a defense. In most big cities, ambulance-chasing lawyers bring so many junk lawsuits that the dockets are flooded, and an aggrieved party must pay those very same con-men just to navigate the system.

          Save your sanctimony. Nowadays, scientists, doctors and grade school teachers do far more for humanity then lawyers. Now its a racket, no better than used car dealerships . . .
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (August 12, 2009 6:49 pm ET)
            6  
            Cheez. There are blood sucking lawyers, plumbers, doctors, dentists, politicians, loggers, slugs, pugs and thugs.

            I know a few lawyers that actually try to help people and ain't getting rich.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Old_Benjamin (August 13, 2009 4:50 pm ET)
            3  
            Nowadays, scientists, doctors and grade school teachers do far more for humanity then lawyers.

            Scientists? Like the ones who had studies suppressed by the Bush admin? And teachers? I assume you mean parents who home school and not those that teach at "government schools".
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Evil Conservative (August 14, 2009 12:37 pm ET)
                4
              Give me a link to these suppressed studies so I can see what you're talking about Old Ben, I'm not refuting they exist or being condescending I'm just curious and ready to learn. As far as the teachers thing, just because you believe that things are handled better privately than being handled by the government doesn't mean you are blind to the accomplishments of teachers. I think they could do even greater things with less governmental intervention. Even Barack Obama knows private entities, left up to the people of this great nation, do better than those run by the government. "...FedEx and UPS are doing just fine. Right? The, uh, no they are. It’s the post office that’s always having problems" And of course you know private schools are far better than public.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Old_Benjamin (August 14, 2009 2:30 pm ET)
                3  
                I'll give you one link - you can google it and find plenty more to support what I stated regarding suppression of science.

                http://www.democracynow.org/2007/1/31/government_scientists_accuse_bush_administration_of

                The rest of your post isn't worth a reply.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Evil Conservative (August 14, 2009 3:16 pm ET)
                  2 5
                  Thank you, I think. I keep reading my post and I'm not sure what could possibly be unworthy of a response. So, I'll just assume you know I'm right...and don't want to be foolish and post something that will reveal your ignorance.

                  But seriously thank you for the information regarding the Bush administrations suppression. I will admit some of the information was kind of boring so I didn't read it all but from what I read I will conclude it this way. Any administration that suppresses science because it say's something he doesn't like is wrong. Any administration who signs into law legislation that makes the government bigger, therefore more intrusive into American lives, supporting one side of the debate on what's causing the globe to warm, is wrong too.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Old_Benjamin (August 14, 2009 4:08 pm ET)
                    5  
                    Sorry, I'll be clearer - your knee jerk fear of the government (which is of course just the representatives of the people) is not worth engaging. Anyone with the worldview that corporations are benign and the problem is the government is so far from my worldview that I simply have neither the time nor the inclination to show how obviously deluded you are.
                    Report Abuse
        • Author by donaldmaddog5642 (August 12, 2009 8:13 pm ET)
          2  
          Dear Cannonball,
          I could not agree more with your summary of what lawyers have and do for this country and the rest of the civilized world. But you are talking about the good guys. There ARE lawyers who have imbedded within the system provisions that protect and empower the greedy and the dishonest to rob and circumvent the very laws you and I admire and abide by. The disgust with which many view lawyers is not just some moronic idea. Like any profession, the police, for instance, have to contend with negative attitudes because of a few violent and crazy types that overshadow the good ones. The conviction or release of a person accused of a capital crime often hinges on the lawyer's ability to confuse and manipulate a jury, legally. Many are sitting on death row for crimes they did not comment and some are released to kill again. Come to New Orleans if you want to see how the system is played.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (August 12, 2009 8:36 pm ET)
          1 7
          They have done all that and more, I am certain. They also are a major factor in the mess that our health care system has become. And until that is addressed not much will change.

          I wonder though if you have ever had to deal with a lawyer, in the Family Law field? Your opinion might change a little.

          I hope my daughter the lawyer doesn't read this.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Old_Benjamin (August 13, 2009 7:14 pm ET)
            6  
            hope my daughter the lawyer doesn't read this.


            I'd think you'd be more concerned about your "daughter the lawyer" seeing you link to the Paris Business Review site above in order to make some point. I know I'm still laughing my a$$ off over that one!
            Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (August 12, 2009 10:26 am ET)
      12  
      FINALLY! I am very happy to see site like MMFA that call out the falsehoods and propaganda from the Righties point out their enablers, their advertisers. Bravo!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (August 12, 2009 10:28 am ET)
      11 4
      "Limbaugh stated: "Obama sends out his army. You gotta -- folks, this is -- this Mussolini-type stuff. This is the president of the United States -- who cannot deal with opposition. There will not be any. He is going to silence it -- sending his union thugs out to physically assault in some cases and to, in all cases, intimidate average Americans who just want some answers."

      Me thinks that Rush is trying to create a situation that will make it very dangerous for Rush's removal from the airwaves and is doing everything he can to create a self fulfilling prophesy for when the day comes and his own advertisers turn away in disgust of him and as his bosses finally pull the plug on him...

      I can easily believe that several of his listeners would see that as the sign to take up arms against a figment of their imagination and lack of being able to tell fantasy apart from reality or that it is Obama, Clinton, and Carter coming for them all... really... those scary Democrats and liberals and progressives oh my!

      FOOLS!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (August 12, 2009 10:31 am ET)
        8  
        I can easily believe that several of his listeners would see that as the sign to take up arms against a figment of their imagination and lack of being able to tell fantasy apart from reality

        Cap, recall the wack job lady who was getting ready to attack an Army base because of the FEMA "internment camp" she thought was there...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by bruce1ace (August 12, 2009 10:41 am ET)
      1 8
      I would recommend advertisers avoid talk radio altogether. Air America has a lot of hosts that are anti-corporate America so really why would a corporation support that, and of course the right wing shows are often not based in reality as documented on this site.

      Conmpanies should just advertise in other places.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (August 12, 2009 12:11 pm ET)
        8  
        Air America has a lot of hosts that are anti-corporate America
        If there are "a lot," name three.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Indy (August 12, 2009 6:43 pm ET)
          4  
          Anti-corporate? That's like saying people who are against the mafia are anti-Italian? They, from my listening experience with AA, are against corporate tyranny, like Teddy Roosevelt. But some are unable or unwilling to separate the two.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (August 13, 2009 8:30 pm ET)
            4
          Unfair! They don't have three advertisers total!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by neon desert (August 12, 2009 10:43 am ET)
      10 2
      To marketing depts. everywhere:

      I realize that, generally speaking, liberal radio listeners aren't your typical ditto-zombies - averse to original thought and predisposed to herding - that make up the bulk of the rightie radio audience who will patriotically buy any product that Rush or Shyawn mentions on their shows. But why not give advertising on the more sagacious liberal programming a chance too? True, your ads will have to go beyond the normal bandwagon marketing ploys so effective among the conservative crowd, as your typical liberal will apply independent reasoning and logic to the consideration of a purchase. Why not take up the challenge?

      Look at it this way - liberal policies are better for the country in general, and the economy specifically. A better economy means more disposable income for more people, and a larger consumer base. Contributing to the promotion of such policies is in your own best interest.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by EZ4you2say (August 12, 2009 4:02 pm ET)
        1 3
        I'd really like to know what liberal economic policies are better for the country?
        Do you mean "Tax the rich?" I know that makes all of you on the left feel good, but how does it really help?
        Please explain this to me, cause I'm trying to understand.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (August 12, 2009 4:22 pm ET)
        2 9
        Look at it this way - liberal policies are better for the country in general, and the economy specifically.

        Yeah didn't Jimmy Carter prove that. And with all that prosperity we had a lot of free time to wait in long gas lines.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by neon desert (August 12, 2009 5:37 pm ET)
          7 1
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

          http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Politics/-/Jimmy-Carter-Inauguration-Speech-1977/6971

          Assuming your other opinions are based on the level of knowledge you've demonstrated here explains a lot.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (August 12, 2009 6:42 pm ET)
            1 7
            Yeah , he was a gem. I wish he had stayed buried and undiscovered.

            http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=264727202278115
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mary59 (August 12, 2009 6:52 pm ET)
              6  
              What a foolish take on someone who has spent years working to better the "least among us."

              As Tolkien said "you speak ill of that which is fair beyond the reach of your thought; and only little wit can excuse you."
              Report Abuse
              • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (August 13, 2009 8:44 pm ET)
                2 6
                Jimmy Carter is an anti-Semitic shill for oil rich Arabs. His work pounding nails for HFH is about the only positive thing he's ever accomplished. As President, he was inept, ignorant, arrogant and depressing. He is Bill Clinton's only hope to stay off the bottom of the list.
                Wait, Obama may very well be more like Carter, except for the carpentry skills, than even Clinton.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mary59 (August 13, 2009 9:07 pm ET)
                  6  
                  See above Tolkien quotation. Fits you like a glove.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (August 13, 2009 11:32 pm ET)
                    2 6
                    Mary59, Jimmy Carter may have worked years to better the "least among us," but he has been a disaster at it. The United States has not had a more inept and ineffective President than Carter. His policies were disastrous at the time, his performance since has been appallingly anti-Semitic, and he continues to be a very real embarrassment to the body politic. His own people quit him when his anti-Semitism was exposed in his book.
                    If the truth is "speaking ill," so be it.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mary59 (August 14, 2009 10:41 am ET)
                      4 2
                      You aren't telling the truth. Carter has been fairly criticised for micro-managing in his Presidency, and made a number of policy errors. However, a fair assessment has yet to be made. There were some energy policy initiatives he made that if followed after his presidency would have tremendously helped this nation.

                      The Iran hostage situation really caused him to lose his re-election. There was a secret deal made by the Reagan camp to release the hostages AFTER the election. If you don't know that, you might check the overwhelming evidence that this is so.

                      Carter is not anti-Semetic and if you would bother to read his book, you'd know that. If you believe that Israel has been blameless in the Palestinian situation, you're woefully ignorant.

                      On the media note, during his presidency the press was hostile to him. They don't like anyone who isn't apart of their little beltway clique.
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by neon desert (August 12, 2009 7:35 pm ET)
              4  
              Again, your ignorance does not fail you, FL.

              That editorial was written in May '07. We've since entered the worst recession since the great depression (I happen to think it's going to be worse) caused by the worst president ever. The author of that piece has proven himself to be less than prophetic or perceptive.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by Tom_Shaftoe (August 12, 2009 11:02 am ET)
      6  
      I knew there was a reason I didn't much care for Red Lobster ever.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by donaldmaddog5642 (August 12, 2009 11:14 am ET)
      8  
      I honestly didn't think my cynicism could be expanded, but the hope that these dangerous goons will be hurt by some advertisers bailing on them will NOT happen. There are always others who will step in and take up the slack. I also am not too sure that any other people "out there" are as cognizant of the swill Hannity, Linbaugh, Doocy, etc., are slinging around. I think it is only the subscribers to MMFA. Most of my personal friends are so disgusted they don't want to hear or read any more about it. Some have even asked me to stop sending them any more links. Therein lies the danger.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (August 13, 2009 11:42 pm ET)
        1 5
        One of the ugly realities of mass communication is that it is about dollars (which are generated mostly through advertising) that 'drive the show.' Air America couldn't attract enough audience to pay for toilet paper, much less produce a profit margin, or even pay the help.
        People listen to Rush because he is witty and upbeat and informative. Beck isn't as effective as Rush, but he is a better communicator than anyone that AA ever aired. It's apparently hard to be be funny when you're a leftist snob.
        Ratings attract advertisers, and advertisers produce profits. Air America couldn't even get laughs from its zombies. It wasn't funny, it was whiny.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (August 14, 2009 10:49 am ET)
          2  
          Okay, now you're trying to do comedy with the comment that Rush is "witty and upbeat and informative"
          and referring to Air America in the past tense is a cute touch, but a bit premature. In your mind that's all there is of progressive radio I guess. That was true when they started but not true now.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (August 12, 2009 11:49 am ET)
      6 1
      Just to play devil's advocate for a minute: it could be as simple as the advertisers wanting their spots to air on programs that have a larger audience. Like it or not those right wing crazies draw a big audience. Air America never really did.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Looking_4_Truth (August 12, 2009 11:49 am ET)
      5  
      Thank you for providing a list, all in one place, of advertisers and companies who support these right-wing zealots. I'm sure there are many others not listed yet. I hope you can find a way to disseminate this information to a much larger audience so they will know who supports this type of rhetoric.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (August 13, 2009 11:44 pm ET)
          5
        Like I said above, I really appreciate MMFA for providing a list of companies to support - those who advertise with Beck and Hannity and Limbaugh!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (August 12, 2009 11:52 am ET)
      6  
      Gret segment, MMFA.

      But please consider adding a section to your wbesite which includes an up-to-date list of ALL corporatiuons who sponsor the TV and Radio shows of at leats the really big hitters.

      Maybe start with those that support Limbaugh, Savage, O'Rielly, Beck, Hannity and Dobbs.

      Links, Addresses and Phone Numbers would be helpful. This would lend a lot of power to your "calls for actions" and give all of your readers and posters a chance to make a difference.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by prs83 (August 12, 2009 11:53 am ET)
      8  
      In response to inquiries concerning State Farm’s recent advertisements in the Glenn Beck program, I want to clarify this situation.

      We have a policy of not advertising on political or opinion programming. We have corrected this issue and have taken steps to make sure it does not happen again.

      Understanding our millions of customers and thousands of associates hold a full spectrum of views on political issues, State Farm has a long-standing practice of not advertising in political discussion programming regardless of a program’s political point of view.

      Because of the recent situation, State Farm is now evaluating its commercial placement practices to ensure its political issues advertising guidelines are maintained.

      Phil Supple
      Public Affairs
      State Farm Insurance

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (August 12, 2009 12:19 pm ET)
        5  
        Thanks for the clarification.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by princeofwheels (August 12, 2009 1:40 pm ET)
        7  
        Ahem, Sorry Phil but how can we be sure you are who you say you are? Please submit on the internet for all to see, your ENTIRE birth certificate, your parents and grandparemts birth certificates, 27 witnesses who were in the delivery room and the middle name of your GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-(and 5 more GREATs) Grandmother on your mothers side. Obviously if you cannot supply this in 5 minutes, We will report you to Twila Twait or whatever her name is.
        Also, causing us concern about the truthiness of your post is that if you rearrange the two "T"s in in State and the two "N's in Insurance, you get the code name State Farm Insurance. Now that is some coincidence, isn't it?
        You cannot put anything past us.

        Signed,

        Proud Conservative and FairlyLiberal
        Report Abuse
    • Author by slyde734 (August 12, 2009 12:58 pm ET)
      7  
      I am on the travelocity.com email list and I asked to be removed based on their sponsorship of Glenn Beck.

      Its a simple way to express displeasure.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by BoboCreepy (August 12, 2009 2:17 pm ET)
      2 11
      Oh, get serious!

      Rush and Beck reach an audience of over 25 million people.

      Whereas, the bankrupt Air America radio has no measurable audience in most market areas.

      It's really not a tough business decision.

      Air America is irrelevant.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (August 12, 2009 2:29 pm ET)
        7 2
        BoboCreepy. Okay, you have presented who you are right off. You know, one of the reasons Rush and Beck reach all those folks? Corporate decisions, ownership decisions about who gets the airwaves and who doesn't.
        Air America has had some stupid management but seems to be holding its own, despite a shaky history. It's not irrelevant if you consider that there was NO progressive radio or television before they started. This seems suspect doesn't it, considering how many progressives are present in the country?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (August 12, 2009 5:08 pm ET)
          2 9
          Actually Rush and Beck reach all of those folks because people want to hear what they have to say. Ditto for Fox News. But of course losers like to diminish the importance of ratings and popularity. If there was some honesty from the left, the ratings would be better. Ask Phil Donahue.


          And air America failed because they had the likes of Springer , Garafalo and Franken as their on air personalities. And there were progressive radio and TV before Air America, they all failed too. No message , no viewers, that is the lesson to be learned.

          Recently I discovered this MMFA prediction about Fox , could they have been more wrong?

          http://mediamatters.org/columns/200801290001
          Report Abuse
          • Author by neon desert (August 12, 2009 6:05 pm ET)
            7  
            "And there were progressive radio and TV before Air America, they all failed too."


            You must be referring to Alan Berg, out of Denver, who was shot and killed because of his liberal views. I guess you would say he failed to protect himself.

            And you've probably been told this before, but just to reiterate in the context of the popular conservative programs, the flies always congregate around large piles of poo.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by fairliberal (August 12, 2009 6:37 pm ET)
                10
              And we can also put your comment in the context of our last election also, can't we.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by neon desert (August 12, 2009 7:29 pm ET)
                9  
                If you want, but in the case of McCain and Palin, there were actually two piles, just not enough flies to elect them.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by fairliberal (August 12, 2009 8:49 pm ET)
                  1 10
                  Of course not, the flies were congregating around the largest pile.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Craig (August 12, 2009 9:56 pm ET)
                    9  
                    I bet you wallowed in the foulest pile in modern US history. Twice.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by jmille426471 (August 12, 2009 9:38 pm ET)
            7  
            Wow, did you seriously bring up Phil Donahue to show that liberals cant get ratings? Phil Donahue was fired from MSNBC while he had the highest ratings on the network. An internal memo later revealed that MSNBC did not want to have a anti-war face on the network at a time when all the other networks were waving the flag around. Maybe you'd know this if you didn't spend so much time brainwashing yourself with fox news and Rush.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bandofotters (August 13, 2009 1:23 pm ET)
              1 4
              Would we have learned all this watching MSNBC? where did you learn it?

              Where should we go for the truth?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by jmille426471 (August 14, 2009 7:24 am ET)
                5 1
                No, I certainly didn't hear it on MSNBC. This isn't one of those things MSNBC would want everyone to know about. If you're interested, here's two links to the original source of the internal memo, allyourtv.com.

                If you read through them, you can see that even while it was being aired, the political content of Donahue's show was micromanaged from the start, particularly when it came to what kind of guests Donahue could have on. That should give you a fairly good idea of who really controls the content of the news; I'll give you a hint, it usually aint the faces you see on TV.

                No, there is not one place where one could have learned about this, nor is there one source from which all facts procede. What bothers me is the hordes right-wingers I come across whose ignorance on countless issues is matched only by their self-assurance, because, by their own choice, they have only been hearing things which confirm their beliefs. I dont have any particular animus towards people like this; I have plenty of RW friends about whom I would say the same thing. However, you really do choose how much you are going to know.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by princeofwheels (August 12, 2009 2:37 pm ET)
        11 1
        Air America is irrelevant as are the 5 million listeners(5 times a week) of Rush and Beck. There powerful messages really turned the tide of the last election.
        The POWER of TALK RADIO led to one of the largest defeats in history.....and it was to a Black guy.
        Well done Rush...Well done Beck... and you are doing it again.
        Creepy Bobo, you gots lots to learn.
        The only ratings in America that count are the final BCS ratings.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by BoboCreepy (August 12, 2009 4:39 pm ET)
            10
          52% was "one of the largest defeats in history"???

          Hilarious!

          No, scooter. Reagan's winning 49 states was.

          Obama is a "one & done" failure, just like Carter...he's already got the lowest approval rating of any President in the last 60 years.



          Report Abuse
          • Author by jmille426471 (August 12, 2009 9:32 pm ET)
            11  
            "He's already the lowest approval rating of any president in the last 60 years".

            What are you smoking? We just had a president with an approval rating consistently in the high-mid twenties. President Obama's is in the low fifties at the moment. Don't be afraid to use check what your masters tell you on google before you embarrass by posting it on the internet. Seriously, it wont kill you.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by historygeek001 (August 13, 2009 2:59 pm ET)
            7  
            Creepy:

            You really enjoy making things up, don't you.

            Obama has the lowest approval rating of any president in the last 60 years? Do you really think that we already forgot Bush, with approval ratings in the twenties? Or Bush I? Or Reagan? Or Nixon? or Ford?

            See, when you're trying to make a point, it works better to use actual facts, not to make things up. This is why we hold people like Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Levin, Savage, Luntz, Malkin, Coulter, Scarborough, and Dobbs in such contempt. They openly and flagrantly lie.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (August 12, 2009 4:59 pm ET)
          1 11
          The POWER of TALK RADIO led to one of the largest defeats in history..
          Wow 52.7% of the popular vote is one of the largest defeats in history, seems a bit of an overstatement to me. Perhaps you are not good with numbers.

          and it was to a Black guy.

          Wow, such a racist remark from an enlightened progressive like you.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Pinhead (August 12, 2009 5:14 pm ET)
            11 1
            and it was to a Black guy.

            Wow, such a racist remark from an enlightened progressive like you


            Nice try. But he is just referring to the fact that a black person winning the presidency by any kind of margin wasn't thought at all possible. It doesn't show him to be racist, it shows that this country was (still is) racist.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by fairliberal (August 12, 2009 6:28 pm ET)
              1 10
              It wasn't a surprise to me, but obviously it was to him.

              And the only people that I see of late bringing up race are lefties. If fact they continually make race an issue even when it isn't even a factor. To many on the left if you disagree with Obama you are a racist. That attitude just shows the kind of crutch that the left needs to make a point. Everything boils down to race.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by princeofwheels (August 12, 2009 8:30 pm ET)
                7  
                May I ask you a simple question? Did theRepublicans lose to a Black man??
                I am but a simple poster, not nearly of your caliber so why do you wish to misinterpret my simple post.
                I like your line "And the only people that I see of late bringing up race are lefties." So the words SEE OF LATE" absolves the racists on the right. Tell me, what did you see before????
                By the way, it is the same crowd listening to the same guy over and over. He is the best to ever sit behind a mike and generate the kind of money he does for his owners and himself. I won't question that..but his message is pure trash and jealousy. Al those listeners and he is classless and no one respects him except his followers.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by fairliberal (August 12, 2009 9:13 pm ET)
                  1 8
                  Of course the reps lost to a black man and to the credit of this country it was not an issue in the election. Why do you make it one now? Why mention it at all? Why do the dimocrats have to play the race card everytime someone disagrees with Obama?

                  And I have seen bigotry on both sides in my lifetime. And I will be surprised if it totally disappears in my lifetime. But what we can do without is the manufactured claims of racism from the left that we see all too often.

                  There are more and more people everyday who disagree with Obama's policies, that does not make them racist.
                  The left would do good to realize that. But I suspect they don't want to, it is too valuable a tool.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by NoNannyNeeded (August 12, 2009 11:51 pm ET)
                    1 6
                    I agree completely! I have many issues with the President but his race is certainly not a factor. People who attended "Tea parties". According to Jeannine Garofalo it wasn't people who are upset with BOTH Parties, there were only racists at these events. Disagree with universal healthcare-racist! let's not even discuss the arrest in Boston!

                    We will never have a color free society if these games continue on both sides of the fence. Racism is offensive but it continues to be when it is unjustifably used because someone doesn't have the resources to have an intellegent debate.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mary59 (August 13, 2009 9:15 pm ET)
                      7  
                      [http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/racism.jpg]
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mary59 (August 13, 2009 9:19 pm ET)
                        7  
                        [http://iusbvision.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/tea-party-acorn2.jpg]
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by NoNannyNeeded (August 14, 2009 11:38 pm ET)
                          2 3
                          Wow, 2 pictures that came another progressive website. This doesn't speak for the tens of thousands that are sick of the direction our politicians are leading this country to. Like I said before, racism is very offensive and most people are disgusted by such actions; however it is disingenuous to catagorize everyone who speaks out against the current practices racist. That is half the problem with race issue.
                          Report Abuse
      • Author by smarshall1432997 (August 12, 2009 4:16 pm ET)
        7 1
        Not true with how many millions of people Rush and Beck reach just because Rush and Beck say this is. Rush said that his show draws in 20 plus million, but when news groups did the research and found no way of this to be true. Hmmm, doesn't Rush state a "LIE" everyday on his show? Wink, wink. LOL
        Report Abuse
      • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 12, 2009 4:40 pm ET)
        7 1
        Rush and beck do not have an audience of over 25 million.They count each listener 15 times a day.They run weekend rerun shows to artificially inflate numbers by counting each listener 15 times on Saturday,and Sunday too.What ever number they come up with right off the top need to be cut in half.The reason is half their audience are monitoring to keep an eye on the nuts.These are people who will deliberately not buy products of the sponsors.The real size of their audience,including people monitoring is about 15% to 20% what they claim.The thing that has Rush's and Beck's interest and a major test of their audience size claims is part of this health care thing.With the mental weakness of the parrots showing up to yell and look stupid and their weak numbers,audience size claims look mighty shaky.Their sponsors have people who gather this information.There are reasons in addition to people conplaints that sponsors drop shows
        Report Abuse
        • Author by BoboCreepy (August 12, 2009 4:54 pm ET)
            7
          You can educate yourself about the radio industry here:

          http://talkers.com/online/?p=71

          Perhaps, if Air America had done so it wouldn't have failed so miserably...but, I still think they would have. All AA ever did was have vile, foul-mouthed illiterates like Randi Rhodes spewing hate...that's not a viable business model.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (August 12, 2009 7:11 pm ET)
            9  
            Illiterates like you probably aren't aware of the fact that progressive radio is doing well, and Air America is still chugging along. As for Randi, I don't like everything that comes out of her mouth, but she's quite informed and articulate.

            Now that's the difference between "left" and "right" talk show hosts. You might not like the opinions of the lefty talkers, but they are at least basing their opinions on facts. AND, they criticise "their side" when they deem it appropriate.

            Dobbs with his birther nonsense is in La La land, every day. Beck decides that our President is a racist, based upon...Nothing. Limbaugh lies everyday. etc.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by slyde734 (August 12, 2009 4:46 pm ET)
        4  
        Great...69 million Americans voted for Barack Obama.

        Relatively speaking...Rush and Beck are irrelevant.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (August 13, 2009 5:11 pm ET)
            6
          LOL if they are irrelevant why are there web sites devoted to attacking them?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by IowaDem (August 13, 2009 11:26 pm ET)
            5  
            Because people like you continue to believe anything they say. Until everyone is educated enought to see for themselves how ignorant these people are, there will always be a need to point out their lies.
            Besides, I truly hope they aren't irrelevant because everyday they continue to slide off into the deep end, people will continue to see how incredibly dangerous and stupid they are and Republicans will remain a meaningless afterthought politically.

            Keep on talkin' Beck, Rush, BillO. Every time you hear something stoopid fly out of your mouths, another independent gets their Democratic wings!
            Report Abuse
    • Author by kteachums (August 12, 2009 2:34 pm ET)
      5  
      I have been watching Lou for a long time on CNN. He is always downing the President. He seems to survive on criticizing his policies. He is not an Independent. He may claim to be but, if you switch the channel you will find "Fox News" saying the same things. I supported the President and I know this is free speech.
      Somewhere there has to be a fine line between arguing the truth and arguing fiction. In no way does the President tell people what to say. If I ever see the President I have to stand in three hour lines just like any other American I know. It would be an honor to be in the same room as our President. I sure don't feel like that about old Lou. I guess he can't find much to talk about in his older years so, he has to gossip. The problem with the gossip is how it is interpreted. Reporters has a responsibility to see that our country remains peaceful and Lou does nothing to bring peace only controversy and unrest.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pointybongo9213 (August 12, 2009 3:12 pm ET)
      5  
      Aside from the U.S. Postal Service, I try to avoid spending my scarce dollars with big bloated companies like the ones on the above list anyway. Buying food at the farmers market (& making sure that the vendor is a local farmer), banking at a local credit union, buying clothes at a local second-hand store (not Goodwill), eating & drinking at locally-owned pubs & restaurants... and not driving unless it's absolutely necessary: keeping the money in the community is more important than ever these days, now that the tentacles of the multinationals are creeping farther & farther into our lives.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by TheSarge (August 12, 2009 3:47 pm ET)
        6  
        Hey, I've got a new ad campaign slogan Red Lobster can use.

        Red Lobster: For The Racist In You.
        Now all of our seafood dishes come with all-you-can-eat* Glen Beck*-brand racist nonsense and general insanity. And, for a limited time, buy one republican party membership, get one free!

        *Urge to vomit may occur. See Glen Beck for details.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ferdinand7773437 (August 12, 2009 3:32 pm ET)
      8  
      Just got off the phone w/russell at:
      Corporate Address
      Red Lobster
      5900 Lake Ellenor Drive
      Orlando, FL 32809
      (407) 245-4000
      He stated that he will forward my complaint to their media/advertising dept
      Report Abuse
      • Author by BoboCreepy (August 12, 2009 4:56 pm ET)
        1 7
        The VP for Marketing at Red Lobster and I are old frat house brothers.

        He's a huge Rush Limbaugh fan, so you're peeing into the wind.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (August 12, 2009 7:00 pm ET)
          11  
          Welcome back, hissy buff. No doubt you were also present for the inauguration of Lincoln and know Jon Voit, too...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (August 14, 2009 11:11 am ET)
            5  
            He also just played a round of golf with the Pope and Queen Elizabeth drove the cart.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by princeofwheels (August 13, 2009 12:04 am ET)
          4  
          I am good friends with Louie "RED" Lobster and his family owns the joint. And I had dinner with Grace Kelly the other night. Really, her name is Grace Kelly.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by cokids (August 13, 2009 7:15 am ET)
          4  
          Even big fans can tell on which side the toast is buttered and for some people, $$ are the bottom line...NOT Limpbaugh! Hopefully your frat brother is a good corporate man and puts $$ on the bottom line. If not, perhaps he should not be VP!!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Earth calling Liberals (August 12, 2009 10:18 pm ET)
      1 8
      Face facts, no one wants to advertise on a garbage radio program like anything air america broadcasts. It's just simple math people.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (August 13, 2009 8:31 pm ET)
        7  
        Actually the sponsors of progressive radio are getting lots of new biz, thank you very much. Just check with KPOJ in Portland. Their local advertisers are thrilled.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by cokids (August 13, 2009 7:00 am ET)
      3  
      Are we sure about the GE connection? Olbermann debunked O'Reilly's comments about GE last night. Be sure!

      Since GE owns MSNBC and they run Olbermann and Maddow, we'd have to presume that GE is playing both ends of the field?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by bandofotters (August 13, 2009 9:52 am ET)
      1 5
      "In 2006, companies reportedly requested their ads not run during Air America content"

      Was this due to an attempt at political censorship or was it done with the knowledge that listenership would drop off during Air America programming? Isn't it significant to know which it was especially where advertisers might be paying for a pre-determined number of spots?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jpeagle21 (August 13, 2009 10:42 am ET)
      1 4
      You're right. I can't see WHY companies would want to advertise on Beck. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that no one (relatively) is watching the other networks. Those companies just must all be Obama-haters. But, i know......i know...it is all about "doing the right thing" (as long as "the right thing" is what you agree with). Wanting to make money is evil.

      Nielsen Ratings for Cable News - August 11, 2009
      5PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
      Glenn Beck– 2,331,000 viewers (687,000) (1,113,000)
      Situation Room—748,000 viewers (159,000) (331,000)
      Hardball w/ Chris Matthews—621,000 viewers (133,000) (308,000)
      Fast Money—245,000 viewers (70,000) (113,000)
      Prime News–164,000 viewers (63,000) (100,000)

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jpeagle21 (August 13, 2009 10:44 am ET)
        5
      Oh yea, and do we really want to compare the number of Rush Limbaugh listeners to the number of Air America listeners? That would be embarrassing.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by princeofwheels (August 13, 2009 11:15 am ET)
        4  
        What do numbers have to do with anything but corporate profits? If that is what you are about, fine. They make more money.

        You guys never want to discuss context..just that "he has the biggerest audience". Again, what good do these biggerest rated show do on the political front other than lose elctions. My proof is 2006, 2008 and 2010..ditto that til about 2020.
        Maybe Republicans will then get they idea that the Cons have ruined your Party. Need proof, let me see, 2006, 2008 etc etc.
        Unless the Paris Business Review reported that McCain and the QOTUS won the election.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by AnneE (August 13, 2009 11:34 am ET)
         
      Anne from GE here: As part of our normal advertising rotation, GE stopped advertising on Glenn Beck's radio and TV shows in mid-July
      Report Abuse
    • Author by trooth (August 13, 2009 12:01 pm ET)
      1 3
      Those companies pulled their ads from Air America because nobody was watching it...advertising's goal is to reach the most people; corporations rarely care about the "moral repurcussions" of advertising during shows that SOME might find incindiary, only if it ends up costing them money. And judging by the influence of MMFA vs. the size of Fox News' viewership, I really doubt they're going to pull their ads because of these boycotts.

      It's all about the money...which leads me to "who's really in bed with Big Business??" They all are...Dems, Repubs, it doesn't matter. The politicians use their symbiotic relationship with BB to advance their agendas, and BB will hop on the train as long as it's profitable. Just trying to illustrate that Evil Republicans aren't the only ones giving BB a reach around.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Truth Crusader (August 13, 2009 2:48 pm ET)
        3  
        "And judging by the influence of MMFA vs. the size of Fox News' viewership, I really doubt they're going to pull their ads because of these boycotts."

        Have you read any of the above? Geico; Sargento; Lawyers.com; Men's Warehouse; State Farm; Proctor & Gamble; Progressive Insurance.

        You were saying?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by karlee (August 13, 2009 11:48 pm ET)
          1 4
          Oh pure BS! Obama's Van Jones who is special advisor for green jobs, and who is affiliated with “New Colors of Change” has used his muscle and organization to bully Geico and lawyers.com to pull their advertisements. Dumb, because Glen Beck has 2.2 million viewers per night. He is pure gold and Fox knows it. He's not going anywhere. LOL! Bill O'Reilly has more 3.19 million viewers. Fox has more viewers than the combined total of CNN, MSNBC, Headline News, and CNBC. Fox has better ratings for daytime and night.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Indy (August 14, 2009 1:21 pm ET)
        5  
        "Those companies pulled their ads from Air America because nobody was watching it".

        Exactly, the advertisers paid for a TV ads on a radio show. No wonder they were upset.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ski (August 13, 2009 8:50 pm ET)
        6
      I agree with Beck, I think Obama is a racist!!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dobber123 (August 13, 2009 10:31 pm ET)
        8
      it want happen because they no most americans dont agree what air america and there left wing propaganda programming r saying
      Report Abuse
    • Author by 1980Dawg (August 14, 2009 12:59 pm ET)
        5
      I am a staunch democrat and love MMA; I think Glenn Beck could be possibly be the devil.......but I do not agree with the tactic of bullying his advertisers. It just doesn't feel like the right thing to do; I think Fox News is the one who should be held accountable. Beck's advertisers are trying to reach the individuals that watch his disgusting show; is it their job to only advertise on shows who's content they agree with? I just think this is the wrong tactic and comes across as low ball; it reminds me of something Bill O'Reilly would do.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by michaelocc (August 14, 2009 3:58 pm ET)
      5  
      I work for a public relations agency representing Travelocity.

      To clarify, please note that Travelocity did not specifically place its advertisements on the Glenn Beck program. Simply put, Travelocity buys ads in bulk and then they are placed somewhat randomly.

      However, as of Monday Travelocity specifically asked that its ads do not appear during this show.

      Thanks,

      Michael O'Connor Clarke
      mocc@thornleyfallis.com
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MikeW67 (August 14, 2009 5:41 pm ET)
      1  
      GOP-tethered corporations busted again. We need more reporting on whom is sponsoring these lunatic far-right broadcasters. They have portions of the public so misinformed and frothed up, these dupes are going out to town halls to yell & scream to try to stop a health care program, they will need as soon as they lose their job...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by JuliaP (August 14, 2009 9:36 pm ET)
        5
      I will take note of the advertisers on both Glenn Beck's radio show and his TV program, and will go out of my way to patronize his sponsors. I hope others will join me. And of course I will not patronize those who do not support freedom of speech.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (August 14, 2009 11:54 pm ET)
        4  
        Great. Another dim-wit who doesn't have a clue about "freedom of speech." Hint: Beck can say anything he wants to. But he doesn't have some guaranteed right to say it on the public's airwaves. And the public can boycott his sponsors, which is ALSO freedom of speech.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by rom1210@msn.com (August 15, 2009 3:53 am ET)
         
      It is a long-standing ethical tradition that radio talk show hosts do not speak ill, or at least at all if possible, of one another.
      Art Bell in his wisdom and care founded the National Association of Radio Talk Show Hosts. He had help. But, of course, we are not bound by that rule. There are, of course, three things that govern a talk show host's privilege to broadcast, the first and most powerful is that he or she must sell advertising and make money for the station, network or disseminating entity. The second, of course, is that the broadcasting entity approve of the show and its contents and, if it does not, in most cases can shut the show down in minutes flat. The third is the Federal Communications Act is which there are certain rules against incitement of violence, sedition, violations of national security or the health and well being of the U.S., its elected officials and the citizenry. Violating ther Secrets Act and the little known Broadcasting Board of Governors, who exercize control over U.S. propaganda broadcasts via Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and its sister agencies. One of the members is Hillary Rodham Clinton, former board member of Walmart. But in the U.S. the advertisers rule and those like Glenn Beck and Mike Savage have learned the bitter lesson.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by oversees (August 15, 2009 7:05 am ET)
         
      What some people seem to be missing is that freedom of speech also carries a responsibility. No one, rather left or right, should have the right to spread falsehoods or incite hate. No one should be allowed to freely through around Nazi comparisons or call for the death of others. That is far beyond the point of free speech.

      Free speech is a right with responsibilities and limits. It is about time we realize this. Sometimes I am almost embarrassed over the US media. Many foreigners are shocked when they here what goes on here. And don't come to me complaining that they are all socialist. Most of those making this claim don't even understand what your talking about. I know that is a little harshly put, but it is true.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.