Home : Blogs : Inna Hardison-ha media group Design, Printing, Web : Ha Media's Marketing & Advertising Blog

Consumers and Advertisers - the cowardly lions of this democracy?

As someone who takes the practice of journalism and responsibilities that go with having an audience seriously, I despise Glenn Beck. He spews hatred for ratings, riles up the base, and has no problem misleading those who tune in. Never mind that I am on a somewhat different side of the political fence - if he handled information in a more responsible manner, I could disagree with him and still respect him.

We have all heard our fill of the latest Beck scandal - calling our President a racist. It was unprofessional and uncalled for, in my opinion, but are we sure we really want WalMart deciding our Television Programming? Are we, the libs, indeed so happy that Beck is losing advertisers because of what he said?

Did any of you sign this petition on Color For Change? Did it feel good?

See, the problem here, as I see it, is that if people want to watch his show and believe everything that comes out of his mouth, they have a right to do so without having to spend money on access to it, as hateful as some of us think it is. The only way for that to happen is via ad dollars that go to network advertising. I don't know too many people who evaluate the products they buy based on which particular show or program they saw them on. I always thought that it was pretty clear that any ad on ANY program is not an endorsement of the opinions voiced. I thought we, the consumers, were smarter than that.

One can make an argument, of course, that what Beck says on his show is or can be dangerous, in much the same way Rush and O'Reiley have been accused of same - all the way down to inciting violence. I won't belittle those arguments, but I will only ask you this: is our (and that's all of us) access to DIVERSE sources of information, news and opinion something that we still hold dear? Because if it is, we are engaging in murdering the future of that access. Freedom of speech, and freedom of the press do not and never have guaranteed us that we would always like what we see or hear. The protections are in place specifically for those times when we don't. I whole-heartedly disagree with what Glenn Beck says, but if I were to boycott any advertiser right now, I would do so BECAUSE they pulled their ads. Because to me, this democracy is much more important than any insult, no matter how hateful, spewed from the airwaves.

Your thoughts?

cause i rock...

Posted by Inna Hardison-ha media group Design, Printing, Web on 08/20/2009 03:12 PM

Comments (35)

Freedom of Speech Stand Up America in the ActiveRain Channel

glenn beck sucks but has the right to all of it, lets grow some balls, freedom is not just an empty word, suck it up that he has an audience

Post is included in group: Wrong Right Turn
Post is included in group: Silent Majority
Post is included in group: Proud to be a Liberal
Post is included in group: Dissent
Post is included in group: Blatant Politics

35 Comments on Consumers and Advertisers - the cowardly lions of this democracy?

AUG

yes, I firmly believe in our right to read, and subscribe to whatever information we so choose.

the test of a true free society is to protect the free speech of someone who's standing up screaming that which you revile. Protect his freedom of speech, and you'll understand what liberty really means.

Alan - cool, good to know I am not alone:-) Thank you...

This is not a new argument. The FCC was dealing with this with the Shock Jocks, like Stern

who is very popular with cetain parts of our culture. I listened and realized that I didn't need to hear what he was saying so I simply turned him off

Many don't, and he gets to live the American dream, but I don't pound my chest and demand his removal, we live in America and I may need to right to stand up and be heard some day

and if we take Beck's and Rush's and PBS's right away, we can call our country something else

You are definitely not alone, Inna. Although I guess I would respect an advertiser's choice to pull ads to avoid any perceived association with a distasteful product, I agree that attempts to silence a commentator by boycotting the revenue source are an assault on free speech.

Dave - I know it's nothing new, but I always hold this weird hope that when we evolve - it's for the better, and that we do learn something from our past mishaps and infringement. Thank you for a thoughtful response...

Patrick - the thing is, most big advertisers don't actually pay any attention to the content of the programming their ads appear on, but to the numbers of eyes and ears tuned in at any given moment. They (or rather their agencies) shop by time slots and ratings, and even then it's usually in bulk. FOX will not lose a dime in revenue as a result, which should actually make this whole campaign at silencing Beck a rather ineffectual one - Rupert is not a stupid man, and will not fire him. At worst, Beck's show will simply run ads-free:-)

Inna, Glenn Beck does go off the wall with his mouth some days. It doesn't come across as a political view commentary per se, but entertainment, like you said for ratings. But that is what it all seems the talking heads are about.

Gary - no argument from me on Beck going off the wall:-) I prefer having and utilizing the right to change the channel though to bullying his advertisers to pull their ads.

I agree. My question about Stern was never why he produced the kind of show he did. It was why people watched it. But the fact is that people should be free to watch it, just as advertisers should be free to take advantage of the eyes watching him, without feeling like they're condoning anything he is doing or saying.

It was wrong to try to take Beck of the air (as much as I dislike him), and (as much as I hate Wal-Mart) it was wrong for the advertisers to pull their ads.

The question we should be asking is "how we as a nation have become so divided?"
Yes... FOX and MSNBC networks have a BIG hand in that division, but it is the American public that have created this monster, with their support for the true evil. Entertainment news.

Americans should also try to kill Reality TV. I'd really appreciate it.

Jon- ;)

Jon - you just keep those hands off of my Idol:-)

"Yes... FOX and MSNBC networks have a BIG hand in that division, but it is the American public that have created this monster, with their support for the true evil. Entertainment news." - that's freaking brilliant!!!

Inna - Can you really blame those advertisers for not wanting to be associated with, or in any way (however obtuse), linked to Glenn Beck?

I think that's the real reason they pulled their ads.

PS: Congratulations on being "in the spotlight" :)

Stewart - I can blame them for allowing themselves to be bullied into pulling their ads. If advertisers went by associations with content on and in anything that gets printed, or ran on radio and TV - they'd spend all their time and resources effectively engaging in discourse they have no business engaging in. Boycotting a revenue source for not liking something a TV personality says on the air is immature at best and un-American at worst.

So yes, i want us ( on this side of the fece) to grow some freaking balls, acknowledge that FOX and the schmucks on it have the audience, and fight our battles in a way that doesn't take away from the ideals of this nation.

Stewart - PS: thank you for the congrats:-)

I've never watched Glen Beck and I've never shopped at a WalMart but I know something about advertiser boycotts they always back fire. I spent 20 years in ad sales. I can tell you stories. My first boss was Rupert Murdoch and he always had problems with advertisers long before he bought 20th century fox studios and metromedia television stations to form fox broadcasting. He could care less. When he was just a publishing mogul he used to say.."If they don't like what we say - let them buy a printing press". Now he is probably saying let them buy a satelite. I may not agree with his politics - but he is a brilliant business man and was a great boss. He knows how to exploit a niche. Lets face it people who watch fox shop at Walmart people who read the NY Times shop at Saks.

Mitchell - hi, long time no see:-) Great commentary, and, of course it's nice to have an opinion on this from someone in the know.

Now, I really hate to say this, but in the interest of full disclosure, I don't know whether or not Walmart was one of the advertisers that pulled, i just stuck it in that one sentence in a rather disconnected from Beck, rhetorical question sort way. I do not know who comprises his list of advertisers, other than the few companies whose names were mentioned in other media.

Inna, No problem I haven't been following the story. I believe in separation of church and state - advertising and editorial.

Mitchell -As well they should always be separated. Back when I had the pub here - the only thing we wouldn't run was an advertorial. To this day, can't read them:-)

Jon: Survivor needs to stay, especially if American Idol gets to!

Inna

I agree with your conclusion even though I disagree with the commentary.

Be Blessed

AUG

Well Inna,

Maybe we should agree to disagree on Beck but AGREE on the premise of your post.

Freedom of Speech is wanted by all Americans not just those on the Right or the Left.

Great Post by the way. I really do think you are a very talented writer.

Just an interesting side note.

I am a walmart shopper who watches Beck.

Mitchell I take it your are a Saks shopper who reads the NYT.

Let's take a look at what average Americans are doing and who is being rewarded and who is getting their Clocks Cleaned as Pete Sessions stated at his town-hall meeting last night.

Retailer Saks Inc. posted its fifth consecutive quarterly loss Tuesday, while Wal-Mart's profits surged 17%.

Fox News posted an astonishing 50% jump in profit last quarter, while Viacom's profit was down 32%.

Just an observation, from a Redneck walmart shopping MOM.

Mitchell,

You, guys, just do not have a WalMart in Manhattan. Would be interesting to watch how the buying habits change. I recently read about some WalMarts revamping their stores to serve a more affluent clientele, who were not Walmart buyers before.

Inna,

This is bigger than Glen Beck. See this video clip. I understand that you and I must Agree to Disagree on God and that is fine. That is not my concern. But should we have the same premise that your post states in regards to the UN. This is a slippery slope we are on.

I never thought I would totally agree with Hitchens but here you go. Interesting......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfBQ9Dhi8vs&feature=player_embedded

Interesting that Becks rating have gone up since the advertisers pulled their ads.

Of course it is their right to spend money where they want to and my right to watch who I want to.

We all do get our news from different sources. We tend to read and watch folks we agree with it, it reinforces our opinions.

As long as all opinions are allowed to be expressed, I am fine.

If the "fairness doctrine" ever was passed, I would be really upset.

I said Saks, could have been Macy's or Bloomingdales based on who advertises in the paper. As I mentioned I used to be in ad sales. Different stores advertise in different papers based on demographics. NY Post and Daily News do not get the same ads as The Times they get different ones. I was once told by the head of advertising at Bloomingdales that NY Post readers are Bloomindales shop lifters.

Jon, There is a WalMart in White Plains where Sears used to be. We have plenty of discount stores in Manhattan. JC Penny just opened. They've always had their corporate headquarters here but never had a store.

Alice, I'm a stockholder in news corp parent of Fox. You are comparing apples and oranges. Viacom is diversified public media company. Fox news is not a public company it is one division of Fox which is a division of news corp.

News Corp. posted a loss of $203 million, or eight cents a share, for the quarter ended June 30. A year earlier, the company posted profit of $1.1 billion. Revenue dropped 11% to $7.7 billion.

Inna, the only disagreement I have with you on the topic is, when deregulation of the media industry happened, when we no longer had access to "both sides" of the issue via the massive takeover of media outlets by a few, i.e. Clear Channel and Ruppert Murdock for example, we then lost the ability to truely "choose" our sources. Turn the radio on any time of any day, and you will hear Clear Channel. Watch TV or read a news paper and you will see Ruppert Murdock everywhere. Personally, I speak with my pocket book and have boycotted many products that support either the abuse of animals in the food industry, or the use of animals in product testing. I think this is one way the people have put pressure on an industry that has, in recent history, left out the majority of the population, and pandered to the "wants" of the minority. I'm not saying Beck should be silenced, but for a company to align themselves with people of his ilk, does not bode well for their collective corporate reputations.

Scott - yeah, whatever - you can have your Survivor (if i get to keep my Idol, of course):-)

Hugh - well, i am glad we agree on something:-) This post was not about commenting on Beck's style, though. It doesn't even have to be Beck - it's a more general question on whether or not we think we should boycott revenue sources of media we disagree with. I know where you stand on it...

Alice - if you believe in Free Speech - shopping at Walmart is a pretty strange way of showing it, considering Walmart is notorious for censoring artists and musicians.

Jon - nope, I just can't see a Walmart in the midst of Manhattan... Never gonna happen:-)

Alice - why does it surprise you that you'd agree with Hitchens? He is a conservative - in the best traditions of that word (well educated, open-minded and always keenly aware of social and societal changes, and with a rather distinct sense for fairness).

I think the resolution is ludicrous, and it would be rather cowardly of us to go along with it, if you want my opinion. Of course, to me this has nothing to do with which nations/states/religions are seeking to have it implemented. It only matters that it's a possibility.

Missy - Stern is no longer free for the same reason. Now to get his broadcasts people have to spend money. That concerns me. If Beck were to go on some syndicated program where one would have to pay to get his commentary - it would no longer be an issue of just choosing which opinions to listen to, but what one could afford.

Thank you for your comment.

Mitchell - I appreciate your corrections to profits statement. Let's see where this discussion goes from here.

Terry - I am of the opinion that the products and their ads are not indicative of the advertiser's support of the show - outside of blatant endorcements, such as Ford/American Idol partnership. For that reason, i think it's not only silly to boycott the advertisers in this case, but it broaches a larger philosophical question I believe I posed in this blog: " do we want WalMart deciding what we watch, read and listen to?" Because if you are ok with boycotting the ad sources for having their products appear on something you disagree with, then logically it should follow that you are vesting these advertiser with the power to 'support any message, or opinion". If that becomes the case, than the advertisers with the biggest budgets will decide which information we have access to, as opposed to people in charge of content and editorial.

I am with Mitchell - there is no fuzzy line here, but a rather distinct one, of separation of content and advertising, and I think it's in all our best interests to fight for that line to remain where it is.

Inna - I agree with you on this one. Advertisers should be free to choose where they'd like to advertise. And shows/papers should be free to choose which companies are allowed to advertise. If an advertiser objects to the policies or opinions of a station/paper, they should be free to not advertise there. Similarly, if a station/paper objects to the policies or practices of a potential advertiser, they should be free to brush them aside.

What I find interesting in Color For Change's position is that their claim against Beck could just as easily (if not more easily) be made against them. They say he's racist for opining that Obama may be racist. But by that standard, since they have opined that Beck is racist, doesn't that make them racist? It's a rather vicious circle when the definition is what they've made it. And given that that's their definition, shouldn't the advertisers be avoiding catering to Color For Change?

If they really wanted to hurt Beck, they'd figure out how to convince his audience to leave and ignore him. But they just don't have that audience's attention. And they don't appear to be doing anything to compete with him in the arena of ideas on Cable or Radio.

AUG

David - i am glad we agree on this. I must say i can't seem to follow your logic when it comes to the whole race thing though. :-)

AUG

Morning Inna, I understand what you are saying, but I will continue to boycott products that are made by polluters, use animals in testing, and rape the rainforest and the environment. I can't see how consumer boycotts do anything other than impact the corporate bottomline. Afterall, our pocketbooks can be a very strong weapon. As for Walmart? No way Jose will I ever walk into one of their stores.

Morning Terry. I, too, won't buy certain products, if I disagree with the corporate ethics or manufacturing practices, but in this case the product manufacturers have NOTHING to do with the message on the program. If anything, by all means boycott FOX news by not watching it and/or by debunking any untruths that come off the air. I have no problem with that. Boycotting the advertising revenue sources, however, is akin to an attempt to silence the opinions, voices and perspectives of those we disagree with, and that I have an issue with:-)

I see your point Inna.

AUG

I knew you would, dearest:-)

Leave a response…

Name:

Email:
(optional)

Comment:

What does the graphic say?