Boycott the Glenn Beck Boycott!

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-20-2008
Boycott the Glenn Beck Boycott!
41
Mon, 09-21-2009 - 1:00pm

Boycott the Glenn Beck Boycott!

If this were Canada or Europe, crushing a right-winger would be a snap: all you have to do is haul him before a “human rights tribunal” (packed, of course, with ultra-leftist judges), accuse him of “racial hatred,” and off to jail he goes.

Boycott the Glenn Beck Boycott!

With the Obama administration leading the charge, multicultural elites are joining forces to silence conservative Fox News commentator Glenn Beck. It’s time for Americans of all political persuasions to fight back against this blatant attack on the Constitutional principle of free speech.

Read more about how you can support Glenn Beck and free speech: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/boycott-the-glenn-beck-boycott

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/2009/09/21/boycott-the-glenn-beck-boycott/

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Fri, 09-25-2009 - 3:23pm

~K...I wasn't trying to offend you. I hope you didn't take it that way~

Not offended, just not wearing a tinfoil hat and guessing a stranger's thoughts :)

~gang up~

Given that they are in competition for our dollars, I'd be surprised if they grouped together in much of any capacity let alone to gang up on Beck.

~If wealthy corporations....then they don't have to watch his program. Simple as that.~

Corporations have a legal mandate to their shareholders not to do things (incl. how they allocate the advertising budget) that may well interfere with increasing profits.

~Here in my town in Utah there is a Mormon pagent held every summer....~

Would your town or the LDS church continue advertising that pageant in a poster on the window of a store that suddenly started selling sexual bondage equipment or books that advocate in favour of legal abortion? Maybe not, because they could lose support. Similarly, companies don't want to lose their customers.

~Perhaps some of us interpret that constitutional right differently. My 16 year old son...~

Understood, having raised a bunch of teens myself :) and also my country has a different constitution so I'm not as well versed in yours.

Maybe consider this. Beck doesn't own the network. It's not his "house", it is the network's house and advertising dollars pay the bills.

~What! Are we going to go backwards now and he who has all the dollars has all the power?~

Television has always been based on advertising dollars. When it first started entire shows were structured around selling particular products.

Advertising executives regularly reviewed scripts, for example, and asked for changes such as eliminating controversial topics from an episode because that might upset buyers of their products.

Generally tv companies complied because they used the advertising dollars to pay for the salaries and equipment and props, etc., and to make a profit themselves.

Now controversial topics, etc., can generate revenue (ie. more of the public likes that) so there are currently shows like Beck's. However, it's not a no-holds-barred situation. There are still lines the public doesn't like to see crossed.

Would you buy products from a company that advertised on a show you thought was too sexually explicit, or whose host said things you thought were appalling?

That's the sort of thing corporations have in mind when deciding how to allocate their advertising budget. They wouldn't want to lose you as a customer, or worse, have you organize other consumers in re: to not buying your product (ie. boycott).

~And the man who speaks ill against the King or Church gets put on the rack, hanged or beheaded??? After all it was just the King exersizing his freedom of expression!~

:)

Thank you for offering your view. It's been interesting reading your posts.

ed. to correct a spelling error that was bugging me lol :)




Edited 9/25/2009 11:17 pm ET by oh_kate
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Fri, 09-25-2009 - 3:24pm
Understood. However, would you pay for them to say it? That's the issue re: Beck's show.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-2007
Fri, 09-25-2009 - 5:47pm
Hmmm...I didn't realize that so many people hate Glen Beck so much! Maybe I should watch his show more and see for myself why he's so horrible.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-2007
Fri, 09-25-2009 - 5:48pm
By the way Oh Kate...where are you from???
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Fri, 09-25-2009 - 7:17pm

He doesn't air here, and I have no feelings about him one way or another. Enjoy :)

I hope that my explanation re: corporate advertising and television was of some help.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Fri, 09-25-2009 - 7:18pm
I'm in Canada. :)

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Fri, 09-25-2009 - 7:22pm
BTW, just to clarify, I think a lot of the broohah re: Beck and advertisers was due his declaring that your president hates "white people" and "white culture", possibly with some of his conspiracy theory stuff from weeks ago thrown in.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2002
Fri, 09-25-2009 - 7:24pm

**<>


I'm not getting this...don't companies have a right to not advertise on shows they don't agree with? Sure, if they don't like it, they don't have to listen to it, but where does it state that they have to continue using those advertising dollars on shows that they don't want to listen to?**


Kind of like, I'm thinking Pedigree dog food might not want to sponsor ads



iVillage Member
Registered: 09-02-2009
Fri, 09-25-2009 - 10:53pm
I think that means that people who exercise their freedom of expression due to someone else's use of freedom of speech is seen as a threat to others freedom to hear the crazy rantings of would-be political talking heads because maybe if enough rational people boycott the sponsors will put an end to the seemingly limitless ramblings - if you know what I mean.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Fri, 09-25-2009 - 11:18pm
Ooooh lol :)

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~