Advertisers pulling ads from Glenn Beck program
 

This has caused a little murmur on reddit lately, but in reaction to Glenn Beck's tirades about Obama's "deep seated hatred for whites" and his agenda to institute universal health care as a form of "reparations" several advertisers have begun requesting that their ads do not appear during the Glenn Beck program. The latest is Geico.

Other companies include:
Mens Wearhouse
Sargento Cheese

GEICO just saved a bunch of money by not advertising on Fox’s Glenn Beck | Media Matters for America

I don't know if this will teach anyone anything, but it is certainly nice to know that corporations are mindful of where their advertisements appear and they seem to be voicing their opinions in that manner. Or maybe someone has some insight that says otherwise.

The very free market capitalism that Beck thinks he's defending is now the method of attack against him. I'd call it poetic, but I don't think Beck could possibly understand why.

Here's the question though: in reading the article, Geico said that they "redistributed" their ad dollars to other Fox shows. That means that Fox isn't actually out any money, just that there's no longer a Geico presence on the Glenn Beck show.

Did GEICO actually accomplish anything than some self-agrandizement here?

---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------

But really, did it attack him? His parent didn't lose any money, and his show doesn't directly sell advertising - the network does.

---------- Post added at 02:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

Here's another article, this time from the Consumerist:

Ad Attacks: Black Blogger Alliance Hits Talk Show Host Where It Hurts

It has a little more cause-and-effect to the whole thing. And it looks like Proctor & Gamble is doing it too. A few more, and it might make folks take notice.

It's a PR attack.

It most certainly does attack him. Yes the money goes to the network, not to Beck himself or his show. BUT - the ad space is sold by time. If nobody wants their ads to appear during Glenn Beck's program that is one hour less worth of ad time that can be sold by Fox.

If enough people don't want their ads played during his program Fox will have to pull him or lower their ad prices, to increase market size, which do you think is more likely?

Well, that's all predicated on "enough", Hektore. So far there are 2 companies that have pulled ads (at least as far as I've seen). How many others buy national air time on FoxNews? My guess is well over 100, but let's say it's 100 to make the math easier. Let's say that 80 of those covet the demographic he brings in. Of those 80, 40 can afford the air time and see it as adding value. Two of those have pulled out, leaving 38 other replacements.

Obviously, those are numbers directly pulled from my ass, but I hope you see where I'm going with it. There's a line of demarkation there, but neither you nor I (I think) know what it is. Knowing that dollar amount would be quite interesting, I think.

I'm impressed usually it is the conservatives that are successful in getting adds pulled. This is the first time i've seen liberals able to do it. Also there are a few more than listed that have pulled out but I don't want to take the time to find them. I think it is up to 5 or 6 big names so far.

Yep, this is too sweet. THe tables are turned.

And yes, it does hurt Beck, because FOX's ad revenues aren't pooled; it's why terrific ratings for, say, Sunday Night Football on NBC won't save a different show that has bad ratings.

Rush has advertisers waiting in the wings to be a part of his show. I'd bet there are industries ready to fill Beck's lost spots. I'd also bet that Fox sees this as great pub for Glenn. Tune in and see what all the ruckus is about!

I've been voting with my wallet for a while now.

The division in the country is reaching a fever pitch.

Obviously, those companies are run by liberals who are afraid of the truth and hate America....














:lol:

This seems like a good thing but unlikely to have a lasting negative effect on the show and the guy who headlines it. I also agree that there will be substitutes for the lost spots and some people will be drawn to the non PC attitude presented in the show. Ah well, it's still good to see some people still care and pay attention.

I don't have a problem with this. It's the beauty of a free market system. In truth, Beck probably doesn't have a problem with this either.

Fox News' Glenn Beck loses advertisers | Entertainment | People | Reuters

Here are more advertisers that have pulled their ads from the program.

This is how I thought it would hurt the most, once a few big names pull out - it snowballs till there aren't any left. Once someone big like Geico very publicly withdraws support for the show, it now forces other companies' PR departments to answer questions about 'why didn't you' or 'you must agree with what he says'. It could stop here, but I think it would be interesting to see it go full scale and show collapse in just a few weeks.

sic.

Sorry I do not see this working in the long run, there will be other companies to take the place, especially with the ratings he gets.
Article
Sorry with ratings beating out that strongly competitors, they will find new advertisers.

While the advertisers have just shifted their ad dollars to other Fox properties, the fact that they have made a point of shifting away from Beck is significant. Ad dollars for television are harder to come by these days. Anyone seen to be losing ad dollars is at risk of not being on air. Fox management will be paying attention. Close attention.

It's possible, but most companies don't want to face a PR nightmare by aligning themselves with a right wing nut.

I always thought it was odd that Progressive even had advertising on Fox. I mean, they hate the very people Fox caters to.

There's also a grass roots effort under way to let these big companies know that customers are pulling their business from them because they pulled their ads from Fox. A double edged sword cuts both ways.

I can hardly wait for segregated consumerism.

I wanna see what happens here. Its not often you see someone with the following of Glenn Beck have ads pulled. Is he too big to fail?

The guys a complete whack job, only his head (or in his head) is he too big to fail.

If he gets fired will he cry?

If you haven't listened to Beck, you wouldn't understand why he's not afraid of failure. Dude's already failed, and rebound to find the success he's currently enjoying. He has an immense faith, the love of a good woman, and kids he's willing to raise in Sarah Conner fashion.

He's got nothin' to lose in his eyes.

Any successful working person that tells you that they aren't afraid of failure is lying to your face. No exceptions. Ever. That's what keeps them driving on to retirement. If they're still working, they're afraid of failing because they have a reason to keep going.

I respectfully disagree. My fear of failure must run parallel to Beck's. I am more fearful of losing "things" I cannot buy. For example, I fear failing as a parent.

I'm not so concerned about failing financially.

Then you're not a successful working person and don't qualify as an example. Unless, of course your bank account has seven figures (discounting any hiding behind a decimal), in which case you're completely unique in business.

Beck's a millionaire. He puts in long hours for his show and his books. The fact that I think they're the equivalent is "WARRRGHARBL OBAMA BAD BUSH GOOD" is immaterial. He's successful in career, and he's driven to succeed in it. If he weren't, he wouldn't do it.

There's no shame in not attaining his level of success, and being a successful parent is arguably more important than having a successful career - my wife would agree with you.

Again, anyone with that level of success who is still working is terrified of failure.

We will have to agree to disagree then.

Maybe Beck is cheerleading to those of us who don't have his wealth, and I appreciate that.

I'm sure he has an exit plan, so maybe this is a moot point.

The fact that you conceed that he probably has an exit plan really proves my point. Exit plans are what smart people do when things go south. I agree that he has one (despite my other opinions of him, he's clearly not an idiot). An exit plan for someone like him will be almost solely in finances and how to grow his money.

And we're not talking about who Beck is or isn't cheerleading. That's completely immaterial. I'm happy that you think he's "on your side" or something of that nature, but you really must have no clear idea of what it takes to be as successful as he is in the business world, regardless of what business that is.

Fair enough. I'll just keep on working my little part time job.

And being a successful parent, I hope. That is as much (if not more) admirable than a highly successful career. It is rare that you can find someone who can be both. I'm lucky enough to have a few of those acting as my mentors.

I am a successful parent. My kids rock.

I'm pretty sure they'll find companies to replace those already there. There are companies that wouldn't mind being associated with him, I'm sure. Or whose clients wouldn't care too much. Nascar?

As an aside, I just saw the movie Network yesterday, after many people's recommendations. Wow. Let's just say it's incredibly relevant to the Glenn Beck type of "news," and an excellent movie.

fox news is my favorite news channel, however glenn beck is kind of annoying...

Geico commercials are annoying so i could care less if they pull all there advertising from fox...

Glenn beck is on "vacation" for a week though the rumor is he was told to go on vacation by fox to let the heat die down.

Beck is on vacation, but the war is still on. There are plenty of advertisers, including Apple, Applebees, Aspercreme, Brita, Buy.com, Days Inn, DirecTV, Ditech, Free Credit Report, KFC (who has a history of bending to consumer pressure), Liberty Medical, Mercedes, National Geographic, Pep Boys, Red Lobster, Scottrade, Subaru, Tylenol, United Healthcare, UPS, and Viagra.

which war are you refering to will?

The war against fear mongers. The war for the free market. The war for responsible newscasting. The war against slander. The war against propaganda. Take your pick.

So what does any of that have to do with the OP?

It's a list of advertisers that are likely considering withdrawing their financial support for Glenn Beck.

There'll be plenty of companies that will gladly pay to have advertising on Glenn Beck. He is fairly popular, or at least have a lot of people who watch him.

That being said, Glenn Beck used to have fairly well regulated arguments supported by a great deal of accurate data when he was on the radio. The second he got a TV show he drove off the cliff. I can't even hear his voice anymore, it's like hearing Olberman for me.

I understand about the advertisers. But you seem to approve of these measures.

Free market much?

I do. I find it hilarious that someone came up with the idea of using a strategy which follows with the conservative talking point/ideology about how the market is the end all be all of everything ever, and that the market can do no wrong to attack one of the right's most ridiculous figures. It would be like getting a black-rights host off the air by hosting sit-ins (though that would be racist).

And then there is the Defend Glenn group. A counter protest group that is alerting Gb fans to ban the advertisers that pulled out of Glenn's show. DefendGlenn.com | Fight the Lies and the Left-Wing Boycott of Glenn Beck

Unintended consequences.

Why is it hilarious? I think even Beck would support this measure, if someone asked him. Regardless of how anyone feels about a particular celebrity, isn't it better for "society" to censor that individual, rather than government (which seems to be the inverse to your intent above, although I may be misreading you)?

I think it is kind of hypocritical to judge Beck here and not the group pushing his advertisers to leave him, Color of Change. They seem to going for pr to promote their own subtle racism.

On the very first page they talk about being united to help ALL regardless of race, class, etc. And yet, when one goes and clicks about this is what they say,

Ummm excuse me, but that doesn't sound like they want to help ALL people, just a select category. Which is fine, but don't tell people you are trying to help everyone when you're not. It's called lying when you do.

Now, if you want to talk racism, to me any group whose purpose is to promote only a select people's agenda is prejudicial to begin with.

I ramble but in all honesty after reading Color of Change's website and seeing what they are about, I am more apt to boycott the companies that support them and bow down to their demands than I am to boycott those that see them for what they are.

It's the same as when the "Moral Majority" used to have boycotts of Hustler, Proctor and Gamble (their trademark sign was "devil worshiping"), and so on.

It's all about power, self promotion and getting your own agendas out and heard. It's one thing to do it in a positive fashion and if it is a good and true cause you don't have to go negative.

However, if what you promote is truly negative and you don't believe in it, you just want the power, then you go after those that speak against you or have big audiences, thus you get noticed and can gain power from those that you sell your bullshit to.

All this has nothing to do with Beck, it's all about power and promoting a true racist agenda from Color of Change.

How would you expect society to censor him?

By not listening to his radio show or watching his tv show

unless you're a Nielsen household, that's not a particularly effective way to boycott the show. letting the advertisers know you'll be boycotting THEM if they support the show has a far greater impact

Agreed

You think color of change is racist and don't like them? Great, feel free to boycott them.

How can anyone have a problem with a boycott of a company that sponsors something that the group or person doesn't agree with is beyond me.

NO!!! Please, we don't need another thread to be about nothing but race. Just let this one slide.

---------- Post added at 11:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 AM ----------

This isn't really a case of "we don't like him", though. Any like or dislike I have for Beck has nothing to do with me emailing Apple requesting that they choose to advertise with another show. This is about incredibly irresponsible behavior. This is about intentionally stirring up the extremists. This is about hate-speech. There's always going to be an audience for hate speech and rallying extremists, but that doesn't mean it should be tolerated. At a certain point, simply not tuning in isn't enough.

in other words, civilian thought police. we don't like that kind of free speech, so we'll make it as unpopular as possible.

"Free speech" is about the government not being able to prevent people from speaking their mind. It has nothing at all to do with the Beck situation. I'm not a member of the government, I'm a consumer contacting a corporation I am loyal to in order to explain that their support of a show like Beck's is making me question my brand loyalty. In what way am I limiting free speech? I'm not.

Anyway, regardless of how hardliners view it, there are limits on free speech. I've posted about this before, about defamation, about false accusation, and about directly putting people in danger. These are all reasoned limits on the right, and all three are routinely broken by Glenn Beck (and to a lesser degree other pundits). As a consumer, I have every right to judge his show as dangerous and act accordingly.

As I said above, I really don't see how anyone can be against boycotts as a tool. Should people be forced to buy from companies that sponsors things they disagree with?

seems to me that conservatives are squealing now that tactics they've no problem with promoting and using so long as they serve a conservative political purpose are being turned on one of their own. this after decades of red-baiting, attempting to squash or marginalize dissent from what was once the left. i find that funny.

so's the implicit assumption that the actual content of arguments presented as if they were coherent on a 24/7 "news" channel are of no consequence, that anything goes, and that what a consumer society really means is that not only do consumers have no power to question the range of commodities they can choose from (their "power" lay only in choosing another from within the range) but that consumers *should* have no power. unless of course they're organized by conservative groups and directed toward conservative-friendly ends.

1) Don't listen to him and let him know you will no longer listen to him (and why).
2) Boycott the businesses that advertise with him and let them know you are doing it.
3) Boycott the radio stations that play him and let them know you are doing it.

If you are in a majority, the free market will eliminate him as a voice.

Incidentally, what exactly is the "hate speech" that you've heard Beck say? Follow up would be a request for a youtube video of said "hate speech".

Um, that's what we're doing. In fact, that's exactly what we're doing.
We'll see.


There are a few more of these floating around, but I think these two videos demonstrate excellent examples.

I don't see how this is a gotcha moment. Companies decided (for whatever reason) they don't want to advertise with Beck. Individuals decided (for whatever reason) they don't want to do business with those companies. Freedom. In the end, things will change, either Beck will tone down; he'll become unprofitable to the network and be pulled from the air; the boycotting companies will lose business and change their advertising; or the boycotting people will pay too much for car insurance and go with Geico anyway. In any case, the government didn't have to lift a finger. Who cares how it turns out. At least, I know that it won't cost me a penny in taxes for this problem to resolve itself.

---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 PM ----------

Yes, I know that. You asked me how should "society" censor Beck. I answered you, and then you told me that's what they are doing. I'm confused.

As to those videos, I don't believe that is hate speech. You might disagree with it, but it's not hate speech. There are SCOTUS definitions of hate speech. I might be wrong, but technically, "hate speech" can't be hate speech if it is based on behavior or unprotected classes (race, color, religion, etc). Beck doesn't dislike Obama because Obama is black. He dislikes Obama because he believes Obama is all of those things in the video - none of which are protected classes. Believing someone else to be a racist doesn't make you a racist. Also, I believe hate speech has to be a call to (illegal) action against a protected class - which hasn't occurred either. Again, I may be wrong about the definition of hate speech, as I haven't looked it up in a decade.

Please don't take this as me defending Beck, I am defending the assertion that what Beck said was hate speech.

What Glenn Beck is doing is called "race baiting". It's a common attack tactic in politics, and it's generally considered to be hate speech. Though it's more subtle than burning a cross or punching a homosexual, it is racist.
Race baiting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So would most of the things that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson say be considered "race baiting"? While I do agree that they are champions against racism, imo they take it too far at times. Not trying to stick up for beck or speak out against sharpton by the way, just curious.

Most? I dunno, I don't really follow a lot of what they say to be honest. I can say that some of the things each of them has said could qualify as race baiting.

Edit: actually, I remember a specific case. Remember Tawana Brawley? Back in the late 80s, a 15-year old black girl named Tawana Brawley accused a group of white men of raping her, and then defecated on her as they yelled out racial slurs. Al Sharpton got involved in defending her/championing her story and he basically lost his mind. He started making Godwins left and right and he even accused a prosecutor of raping the girl, without evidence. It was a perfect storm of race baiting.

Still, what Glenn Beck is doing is really blatant race baiting. He wants white people to not like President Obama because of the incorrect perception that President Obama has a problem with white people. It's a classic method of racists to stir up racism. You can see similar race baiting when Michael Savage went after General Powell for supporting the Obama campaign last year.

would that be akin to MSNBC editing out the skin color of a certain Obama supporter/rifle bearer in Arizona, then discussing how right wing extremists hate a black president?

Please provide a link that shows MSNBC editing out the skin color of an Obama supporter/rifle bearer in Arizona.

I must have missed it. Every report or video I have seen clearly shows the man's race, in addition to showing several others carrying weapons.

Clear manipulation and racism by msnbc.

There were two individuals with AR-15 semi-automatic riffles at the Obama Health Care Town Hall. One of them was a black man that was being paid by a conservative radio talk show host, the other one was a white man in his late 50s that was no affiliated with anyone or anything that we're aware of. Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN all mentioned that there were two, one black man and one white man. Even the Daily Show caught that there were two of them.

I am still trying to understand how that video demonstrates racism or is in any way equivalent to Beck calling the President of the United States a racist.

IMO, raising the MSNBC video is the politics of diversion...an attempt to draw the attention away from Beck's odious and ignorant comment....much like pan's calling Color of Change a racist organization because it's goal is to strengthen the political voice of a minority group.

It's called a
http://musingsandmutterings.com/wp-c...d_herring2.gif

It's because they took the most openly armed person at the rally, and failed to show his skin color while producing an entire segment claiming that these people were racist who were bringing guns to the town hall meetings.

Also Will, where do you get the idea that his presence with the firearm was paid for?

Oops, that may not be 100% accurate (misread an article). Mea culpa.

It was a prank, though.

Neither of the MSNBC hosts called anyone a racist.

They discussed the fact that there is anger expressed at the town halls as well as racial overtones (with some of the signage that appears at every town hall).....combined with bringing weapons to a presidential appearance (and they did not say it was racist or illegal to carry a weapon) raised concern.

It's a prank in the sense that the 'don't tase me bro' guy's stunt was a prank. To do this type of thing you have to have media coverage to do things that are legal but otherwise frowned upon. You have to have this type of exposure to not spend the rest of your life in jail or in a torture chamber. The publicity is what exonerates you instead of what otherwise would make you a criminal for exercising your rights.

I think there's a lot more at stake in both instances to just belittle it as a prank.

It was 'planned'? REALLY?

How else could it of come about? You don't just openly carry a weapon to a protest casually.... You have to be prepared for the consequences...

Pranks are intended to make people look foolish. This was intended to make people against guns seem foolish. This was a prank.

I guess that's true in a sense as the word 'socialism' is now considered a racial slur and even the picture in my avatar has been labeled racist.

Huh?

Who in the media has suggested that refering to Obama "socialism" is a racial slur rather than characterizing it as intentional fear-mongering by those who toss it out there.

Much like your avatar...a silly display.

YouTube - MSNBC Host: Word "Socialist" Code For The "N-Word"

"socialist is becoming the new N'word"

He specifically said....the new N word for some angry birthers.

I would add that the reference was to the same ones with the ugly signs with racial overtones.

IMO, you are really stretching it to further deflect from the issue of Beck calling the President of the United States a racist.

So is it still ok to call the president a socialist, or am I a racist like Beck?

Sure its ok..but more defliection?

Beck did not call Obama a socialist in the incident in question. He called the President of the United States a racist. (i think he did refer to Obama first as a socialist, then as a fascist in earlier shows - for which there were no mass calls for companies to drop their ads).

IMO, calling Obama a socialist or a fascist demonstrates either an ignorant misconception of socialism and fascism or an intentional attempt at fear-mongering, but its your right. :thumbsup:

Just as it is the right of those who were offended by Beck's remark to call for companies to drop their advertising of his show.

Glenn Beck is intentionally race-baiting in order to stir up hatred for President Obama.

Did the right lose their collective shit back in 92 when Clinton came to office? I'm too young to remember.

How blinded you have become now that a liberal is in office.

I get it now. More deflection.

You dont intend to address Beck's offensive comment and the response (and pressure on advertisers) by those who were offended, but would rather play a game of "gotcha" with some dubious comparison by posting unrelated videos.

Hey, that is your right as well. :thumbsup:

I don't have a problem at all with advertisers leaving the glenn beck show. I've never liked the guy and think he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He blasted Ron Paul when he had a slim chance of winning the nomination, but now praises him on his show all the time.

The guy is a total snake oil salesmen, but the left has become blind now that Obama is in power.

I think you're hallucinating. Obama is increasingly losing the support of many in his base.

Yep...many of the most liberal supporters have been very disturbed by some of Obama's national security policies, afghan war policies and his willingness to compromise on the recovery act and health care reform.....just as many supporters who are more centrist are upset by his deficits.

There is no "the left"...that is the biggest difference between the big tent Democratic party and Obama supporters (from the blue dogs to the near-socialists) and the small tent, much more ideological rigid Republican party.

those sorts of distinctions amongst different political viewpoints would require that conservatives and their libertarian copies actually make differentiations when they indulge the game of throwing around labels. who knows where that sort of thing would stop? maybe soon the fatuousness of the entire "reverse racism" meme would become obvious too.

Let's see ... Obama sat in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, but his ears were covered during his "favorite uncle's" racist rants. Now, "them Jews" won't let Jeremiah near Obama.
Obama was caught making racist assumptions about a white cop. Backpedal time!
Obama chose a racist (okay, she's a sexist too) for the Supreme Court. Unless you wear blinders, by now it is obvious that Obama is a racist.

Tell me, did Walmart quit selling Kanye West cds after this little jape?

I knew Wright was coming back. Maybe we should start talking about Lewinski. Or the Keating 5. Or the Iranian hostages.

And for the record, Kanye West is retarded. Everything that comes out of his mouth is more stupid than what came before it. He's not the president and he's not a prominent member of the news media.

The clear instance I remember is that Limbaugh had a TV show back then and he had a timer up in the corner that said something like "America Held Hostage - Day 123". The day was the number of days Clinton had been in office. It was humorous play off the timer that appeared when the Iranians held the Americans in '79. Obviously, people were upset to lose the power base, but Clinton was very much a moderate. If Obama governed the way Clinton did, you would not see this hostility.

This thread is a great example of the strategy "If you've got nothing on defense, go on the offense."

Nice to see Marv has had no trouble fitting Obama into the "But Clinton did it too" paradigm.

That's pretty unfair to take Wright off the table. The point being, it isn't slander if it is true. There is some pretty conclusive evidence that Obama doesn't see "people", he sees "white people", "black people", etc. To me, that is racist. His presence in Wright's church for so long would be valid evidence of that assertion. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable when discussing whether Beck is telling the truth or racebaiting to examine the evidence used to come to his (Beck's) conclusion.

Lewinski was a white girl that sucked off a white president. I don't recall Obama ever publicly calling for Clinton to get hummers from black interns as well- in the interest of affirmative action.

Ya think?

Obama attended the largest church in Chicago where on occasion the minister made racist remarks (if taken out of context) = Obama is a racist.

Obama appoints a women who served on the board of an Hispanic advocacy group and ruled on the "wrong" side of an appeals court affirmative action case = Obama is a racist.

Color of Change, the organization promoting the Beck boycott, advocates to empower the minority community = Color of Change is a racist organization.

is this particular ad pulling campaign in any way similar to how the dixie chicks were treated?

In a thread about how Glenn Beck is losing advertisers? Jeremiah Wright has nothing to do with Beck's race-baiting. In a thread about race-baiting in general I can see us talking about him, but this isn't that thread. I don't know why people don't understand this is a red herring. Look at the first response to my post about race-baiting: rahl didn't actually address whether or not Beck was guilty, but he started talking about other people guilty of race baiting, committing a both a tu quoque fallacy and a red herring fallacy. Then DK mentioned MSNBC possibly race-baiting. Then samcol followed suit. Notice how none of them actually talked about Beck?
Similar, but not the same. I'm not familiar with crowds of people burning Beck's books or people making death threats against him.

Now just hang on a second. I'm not trying to deflect anything, I had no idea what race-baiting meant so I asked. I then wanted to point out that when a white guy does it he's a raacist, but when a person of color does it he's a champion...well Bull shit. I understand this particular thread is about Beck and his racist comments. I'm just pointing out that no one of color gets called on the same thing

one way to look at the use of the "reverse racism" canard in all it's forms is as an attempt by those who wield conservative-speak to position themselves as arbiters of the debate. in the process, they try to set the terms of the debate. it's an obvious move for rhetorical power. to the extent that these moves seem to elicit short responses from others, they work for a time. but the fact that there's nothing to the term "reverse racism" or the logics built from it or the attempts to link one or another abitrarily chosen factoid that may or may not have anything to do with glenn beck or the boycott to it gets in the way.

conservatives are not in any position to try to take over the question of how glenn beck's actions are to be evaluated, or to set the terms for thinking about the boycott.

conservative discourse has lost it's power to speak to or for anyone but conservatives.

Also of note: racial awareness and advocacy isn't racism.

not sure if that was directed at me RB, but what your saying is that only white people are racist? there's no such thing as "reverse racism"? I'm not a conservative. I think people like beck and limbaugh are morons, who intentionally spew misinformation in order to scare people into their way of thinking. I know alot of people who take what they say as cold hard fact and it's infuriating. If beck is making racist statements on the air then I agree with the company boycotts. I honestly don't know if he is because I don't watch his show.

rahl---i should have made a separation. the attempt to insert conservative-speak over this debate is an attempt to control the debate itself. that i see no reason not to simply laugh at. conservative-speak isn't in a position to set the terms, particularly not when the action in question is directed against one of the talking heads who helps articulate conservative-speak.

my personal view of reverse racism is that it's utter nonsense. i'm not interested in going through this argument again here, not only because it's been done to death, but even more because doing it would basically hand conservative-speak what it's usage in this context is after---it would situate it as a necessary frame of reference.
it isn't.
it's an arbitrary frame of reference hodge-podged together that really functions to link petit bourgeois resentment in the contemporary period back to the reconstruction period. same idea, different register.
so no, i'm not arguing with you over this point.
you or anyone else.
that's the end of that.

They were called on it in this very thread. Don't strawman. Remember this?
But this thread isn't about black people being called on anything, this is about Glenn Beck race-baiting, which is incredibly irresponsible and is directly responsible for this campaign against him. Now that I posted what race-baiting is, you understand Beck is guilty of race-baiting, right?