• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fox News firebrand Glenn Beck facing axe

Conservative said:
Hey, suggest you sell your News Corp stock then.
Click to expand...

Why? They are, as you showed, profitable. Their profit is a red herring to all this. Did you know that profitable businesses sometimes have unprofitable divisions? It's true!
 
Redress said:
Boycott MSNBC petition

It just was not very successful.

Or maybe it was...:lol:
Click to expand...

:lamo

Did you read the comments about the whole boycott idea. I saw only one or two that thought it was a good idea at all. Most are like this..

Boycott MSNBC petition
Jaysus, why even bother?

I thought we were already boycotting MSNBC. Nobody watches that drivel, not even Democrats
.
I strongly support a boycott of MSNBC.
I have already programmed my cable box to delete any access to MSNBC (as well as CNN and the 3 network state-run media).

Correct - the old saw in politics - when a man is killing himself, don’t help him.

Let the kooks have MSNBC. America needs to see how stupid these people are, and maybe if more people realize the kooks for what they are, the more energized and ative they will become in defeating them.

Stifling MSNBC simply lowers us to their level.
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
Well, let's see. Let's imagine that O'Rielly pulls in 2 million a week profit, and Beck loses a half million a week. Is FOX making money? So just posting that News Corp is making money has exactly jack **** to do with whether Beck is.
Click to expand...

It also shows that the informatio provided here is jack**** as well since no one knows whether or not Beck is losing money. Has he replaced his sponsors? Still has two million viewers a day triple his competition, a number that you want to ignore and claim as irrelevant. It certainly isn't irrelevant to those 2 million nor apparently Fox News or News Corp.
 
Redress said:
Why? They are, as you showed, profitable. Their profit is a red herring to all this. Did you know that profitable businesses sometimes have unprofitable divisions? It's true!
Click to expand...

Not many unprofitable TV shows are axed for tripling their nearest competitor and generating 2 million viewers a day. Keep raising the red herring, either show that Beck is losing money or admit that you really don't have a clue which would be the honest answer. Does any liberal have an honest statement within them?
 
Gill said:
Did you call me dishonest with a straight face ???? Since you added the revenue AFTER I posted my response !!!
Click to expand...

You are quite dishonest.

Now, if you can only find data from someone OTHER than the group that organized the boycott against Beck, you might have some believable information, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

The statistics support the facts:

Glenn Beck

Just six months later, however, Beck seems to have traveled somewhere else entirely. His ratings and reputation are in steep decline: His show has lost more than one million viewers over the course of the past year, falling from an average of 2.9 million in January 2010 to 1.8 million in January 2011. He now ranks fifth among Fox’s six weekday talk hosts, trailing lesser-known personalities like Shepard Smith and Bret Baier. Beck’s three-hour radio show has been dropped in several major cities, including New York and Philadelphia, and has seen a ratings decline in most other markets. “It’s hard to gain a million viewers,” says Eric Boehlert, who follows Beck’s shows for the liberal media watchdog group Media Matters, “but it’s really hard to lose a million viewers.” And Beck’s fall contrasts with the fortunes of other Fox News hosts, like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, whose TV ratings stayed solid throughout 2010.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to refute these numbers? Or are you just going to keep trolling?
 
Hatuey said:
Here, I'll do you one better. I'll show you some very simple ways as to why Beck won't survive for long and prove how there is absolutely no way that Beck hasn't lost serious ad revenue:

He's being put as a headliner with other prominent figures of FOX.

Howard Kurtz - The Beck Factor at Fox: Staffers say comments taint their work - washingtonpost.com



When you have one program losing viewers and another which is going strong, networks usually try to remedy the situation by putting a weak show behind a popular one so as not to lose potential sponsors. That's pretty sound business logic only that the problem in not Beck losing viewers. It's Beck losing major sponsors. When you start losing Apple, Progressive, Best Buy etc. it's safe to say that it's the result of 3 possible issues:

A) Companies don't want to be associated with you
B) Your message is too extreme
C) You're boring.

Right off the bat we can scratch C. Beck isn't boring. If he were, he wouldn't have 2-3 million viewers. So what is the issue? Well what company wants to be associated with the guy who calls the President a racist? What company wants to be associated with a guy who has predicted the end of the world? You ever wonder why people like Ron Paul have trouble getting corporations to support him even though he's probably the most free market representative of congress? Is because nobody wants to be associated with the guy who wants to remove the US from the UN. It's not the few parts he gets right. It's how extreme he is.
Click to expand...

First off thanks for the reasoned reply, and I'll try and take parts which I disagree with and see if we can't come to a conclusion about this....

1st. I am certainly not saying that all the sponsors that Jones/Soros have been sucessful in either bullying, or scaring into pulling their ads from Beck/FNC are liberals, but I do know that for instance, Progressive Insurance?

Peter Lewis is a huge lib, and is on record of supporting many progressive, liberal causes. snopes.com: Progressive Insurance - Peter Lewis Donations

2nd. Beck apologized on Air several times for this racist charge. However, it is telling that even after a real apology, not one like what demo's love to give where they say 'if anyone was offended....' crap, Beck actually apologized and said he was wrong to say that.



However, even after multiple apologies the liberal left continues to bash with that statement. In an honest discussion don't you as a liberal have to say that if you want me as a conservative to consider the message that Obama, or any other liberal says honestly, then you too have to do that?

3rd. It isn't just Beck, or fans of Beck's show that would like to see the US kick the UN out, and look for a more honest body to have this type of say in the world is it now. I could point to Libertarians, Conservatives, and Democrats alike that believe this.

What a network can charge for ads is not dictated by the actual number of viewers but by the demographics of the people in the audience. If Beck's demographic is made up primarily of people in between the 18-49 groups, he would be able to charge more per ad than somebody who has their audience divided amongst different demographics. Don't get me wrong, a loss of 1/3rd of your viewers is clearly a problem but it's not as big a problem as losing 200 sponsors. Corporations tend to look at each other for where to spend their ad ressource. When you have not one but dozens of car companies, insurance companies and electronics retailers pulling their money out of your show, that sends a strong signal for others to do the same.

So how is Beck losing revenue? Well it's simple, the fact that he now has to sell ad space to people who can't afford the rates you'd charge people like Walmart or Coca-Cola means a giant loss in revenue. As it's impossible to tell just how much one can only say that it's substantial. There's no way that it can't be. Beck can't charge them the same rates he would to transnational corporations and he's losing new sponsors with every ridiculous comment and assertion he makes. He's essentially paying them to stay on.
Click to expand...


In the bottom line, Beck may or may not be losing revenue, and that is for the heads at Fox to decide ultimately whether or not having Beck fill a slot is what they want. It is their business. My problem is with things like the OP that seem to be aiding this "boycott" movement by printing an article based on nothing but pure speculation, using another liberal slanted outlet as their source. Then they come to fill the holes in the story by using what they deem "un named sources"....Well, my BS meter goes off the chart when I see that, and the frothing at the mouth libs that hate anything that doesn't echo their ideology instantly jump on as if it's true.....

There is little fact here and much speculation....In fact the objective truth we can bring from this is Roger Ailes



Sounds to me like he is defending Beck, and supports his show.

Until we hear otherwise, and not from un named sources, and liberal media collaborating with each other as information sources, more wishful op ed, than reporting then I will maintain that Beck is going nowhere.


j-mac
 
Barbbtx said:
:lamo

Did you read the comments about the whole boycott idea. I saw only one or two that thought it was a good idea at all. Most are like this..

Boycott MSNBC petition
Click to expand...

I did not claim it was a good boycott. It's not my fault the guy failed.

Or did he...
 
Conservative said:
It also shows that the informatio provided here is jack**** as well since no one knows whether or not Beck is losing money. Has he replaced his sponsors? Still has two million viewers a day triple his competition, a number that you want to ignore and claim as irrelevant. It certainly isn't irrelevant to those 2 million nor apparently Fox News or News Corp.
Click to expand...

I did not say it was irrelevant, I said it was not the most important factor. Believe it or not, it is not the job of a TV show to get ratings, it is their job to make a profit.
 
Conservative said:
Just shows the intellectual dishonesty of liberals who will do or say anything to advance their agenda.
Click to expand...

What does a conservative boycott have to do with liberal honesty?
 
He IS on vacation this week.......hmmmmmmm.....
 
Mellie said:
He IS on vacation this week.......hmmmmmmm.....
Click to expand...


Oh, here we go....more speculation....You do realize that when he comes back you'll look pretty foolish for implying this right?


j-mac
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I would like to see what you can come up with when you aren't being pre-programmed full of pablum by Beck.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could have replied to the comment Conservative made about being intolerant. Instead we get more diversionary drool from the spigot.

.
 
j-mac said:
First off thanks for the reasoned reply, and I'll try and take parts which I disagree with and see if we can't come to a conclusion about this....

1st. I am certainly not saying that all the sponsors that Jones/Soros have been sucessful in either bullying, or scaring into pulling their ads from Beck/FNC are liberals, but I do know that for instance, Progressive Insurance?

Peter Lewis is a huge lib, and is on record of supporting many progressive, liberal causes. snopes.com: Progressive Insurance - Peter Lewis Donations

2nd. Beck apologized on Air several times for this racist charge. However, it is telling that even after a real apology, not one like what demo's love to give where they say 'if anyone was offended....' crap, Beck actually apologized and said he was wrong to say that.



However, even after multiple apologies the liberal left continues to bash with that statement. In an honest discussion don't you as a liberal have to say that if you want me as a conservative to consider the message that Obama, or any other liberal says honestly, then you too have to do that?

3rd. It isn't just Beck, or fans of Beck's show that would like to see the US kick the UN out, and look for a more honest body to have this type of say in the world is it now. I could point to Libertarians, Conservatives, and Democrats alike that believe this.




In the bottom line, Beck may or may not be losing revenue, and that is for the heads at Fox to decide ultimately whether or not having Beck fill a slot is what they want. It is their business. My problem is with things like the OP that seem to be aiding this "boycott" movement by printing an article based on nothing but pure speculation, using another liberal slanted outlet as their source. Then they come to fill the holes in the story by using what they deem "un named sources"....Well, my BS meter goes off the chart when I see that, and the frothing at the mouth libs that hate anything that doesn't echo their ideology instantly jump on as if it's true.....

There is little fact here and much speculation....In fact the objective truth we can bring from this is Roger Ailes



Sounds to me like he is defending Beck, and supports his show.

Until we hear otherwise, and not from un named sources, and liberal media collaborating with each other as information sources, more wishful op ed, than reporting then I will maintain that Beck is going nowhere.


j-mac
Click to expand...




:clap: Roger Ailes was awesome in that video. He told'em, especially Arianna Huffington :lamo
Thanks, that made my day.;)
 
Hatuey said:
You are quite dishonest.
Click to expand...

Really?? I'm dishonest ?? Are you actually trying to claim that you didn't edit your post after my reply ???

You do know that edits and posts have time stamps don't you ??

Based on my observations of your posts over the years, I'm not surprised that you have a muddled perception of honesty.


The statistics support the facts:

Glenn Beck



Do you have any evidence to refute these numbers? Or are you just going to keep trolling?
Click to expand...

The liberal rags you insist on quoting are NOT unbiased sources. If you can't show any REAL evidence that Beck's show has lost revenue, then give it up. You've already proven to everyone that you are not honest.
 
Slightly off topic, but everyone here is aware that the Citizens United decision was all about preventing boycotts based on political contributions, right?

If corporations are "persons", and money is "speech", then it seems it would follow that boycotts are "speech" as well.

But not according to the Roberts Supreme Court.

I personally disagree that corporate entities are "persons" as they cannot be subjected to the same sanctions as a person. No prison or execution, etc.. But I REALLY disagree that they should be allowed to contribute millions anonymously.

That's WAY to much like not being allowed to know your kids toys are being made in China with lead paint. Because you might not buy them.

If you make a lot of money off the gay community, maybe you shouldn't donate large sums to political campaigns that seek to limit their rights, or at least accept the loss of business that might result, instead of begging the courts to shield you from the consequences of your actions.

If money is speech, then "voting with your dollars" is identical to campaign contributions.

The Citizens United decision upholds unlimited political contributions for business, while thwarting the possible consequence of a boycott.

I feel it's perfectly reasonable for EITHER side to boycott businesses that contribute to their opponents.

What's good for the boss is good for the gander.
 
What if...? said:
Slightly off topic, but everyone here is aware that the Citizens United decision was all about preventing boycotts based on political contributions, right?

If corporations are "persons", and money is "speech", then it seems it would follow that boycotts are "speech" as well.

But not according to the Roberts Supreme Court.

I personally disagree that corporate entities are "persons" as they cannot be subjected to the same sanctions as a person. No prison or execution, etc.. But I REALLY disagree that they should be allowed to contribute millions anonymously.

That's WAY to much like not being allowed to know your kids toys are being made in China with lead paint. Because you might not buy them.

If you make a lot of money off the gay community, maybe you shouldn't donate large sums to political campaigns that seek to limit their rights, or at least accept the loss of business that might result, instead of begging the courts to shield you from the consequences of your actions.

If money is speech, then "voting with your dollars" is identical to campaign contributions.

The Citizens United decision upholds unlimited political contributions for business, while thwarting the possible consequence of a boycott.

I feel it's perfectly reasonable for EITHER side to boycott businesses that contribute to their opponents.

What's good for the boss is good for the gander.
Click to expand...

Please create a new thread on this, and when you do, please document some of these claims. It's the first I have heard of that claim.
 
I'll do that. The only reason I brought it up here was because of the talk about boycotts, whether they are an appropriate response to consumer displeasure.
 
Nothing wrong with political commentators. Better a conservative loudmouth like Beck then a dumbass liberal.
 
Cmdr Sheppard said:
Nothing wrong with political commentators. Better a conservative loudmouth like Beck then a dumbass liberal.
Click to expand...

I went through about 5 replies to this, but then I realized just letting the irony of this post speak for itself is enough.
 
Redress said:
I went through about 5 replies to this, but then I realized just letting the irony of this post speak for itself is enough.
Click to expand...


Do you think Olbermann should have been let go?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Do you think Olbermann should have been let go?


j-mac
Click to expand...

I think that is entirely MSNBC's decision. To be honest, I don't know why he was let go or what the controversy is, I just don't care enough.
 
from What if

Slightly off topic, but everyone here is aware that the Citizens United decision was all about preventing boycotts based on political contributions, right?

If corporations are "persons", and money is "speech", then it seems it would follow that boycotts are "speech" as well.
Click to expand...

CU is the Dred Scot decision of our era. It is interesting that in 1857, the SC ruled that a person is property without rights. A century and a half later, the SC rules that property is a person with rights. We have fallen so far down the rabbit hole that we should be eating chow mein for dinner and it will not be foreign food.
 
Redress said:
I think that is entirely MSNBC's decision. To be honest, I don't know why he was let go or what the controversy is, I just don't care enough.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you obviously care more about Beck. So, can I conclude that if it is a liberal whack job, then you really don't pay attention, but if that voice comes from the right you're all over it?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Ah, but you obviously care more about Beck. So, can I conclude that if it is a liberal whack job, then you really don't pay attention, but if that voice comes from the right you're all over it?

j-mac
Click to expand...

I think that you should avoid concluding. You seem to lack this skill.

I don't think the average liberal whackjob's voice is loud enough to matter to me, but we deal with Glenn Beck's slavering zombie followers daily on DP (see this thread). I would care less about Glenn Beck if his followers weren't so annoying.

It's basically how I feel about BYU football.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom