Fox News Leads Cable News Networks

Fox news leading the cable news market is like 9 of 10 dentists recommending trident for their patients that chew gum... behind the lines, your dentists doesnt think gum is that great of idea at all...

Television news networks all suck... the majority of people that consume crappy sensationalist Newstainment (get it? new stain? damn I'm clever) are conservatives... I'm surprised it took this long for Fox to take the lead... After all... anyone who like to watch Lou Dobbs piss and moan (I'm just saying...) in his blush colored lipstick are getting what they deserve.

"Critics love to see you succeed, just not by them"

They are pulling their ads off.

http://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/beckxodus/?scp=1&sq=advertisers%20pulling%20from%20Glenn%20Beck%27s%20show&st=cse

August 20, 2009, 5:36 am
Beckxodus

Nickname for the alleged “exodus” of advertisers from Glenn Beck’s show on Fox News.

Commenting on the latest companies to pull their advertising from Glenn Beck’s Fox News show (in response to Beck calling President Obama a racist with a “deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture”) RBR/TVBR wrote:

Eight more clients have asked that their commercial messages stay away from Glenn Beck’s Fox News Channel program, bringing the total number of former advertisers to 20. The latest members of the Beckxodus (yeah, we made up a new word) include some big corporate names.

The roster of companies to have joined the “Beckxodus,” according to RBR/TVBR, includes: Best Buy, CVS, Travelocity, Wal-Mart, GEICO, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance, RadioShack, Roche, SC Johnson, and State Farm Insurance.

Too bad Glenn won't get to stand in the unemployment line with all of those people he has spit upon with his rhetoric.

i heard this morning its up to 60 but cant find a list..

http://digg.com/politics/More_advertisers_pull_support_for_Glenn_Beck

Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive, S.C. Johnson, GEICO, Men's Wearhouse and, just Wednesday morning, Sargento.

**UPDATE: On Thursday, ConAgra, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and RadioShack

edit--i retract the number 60 because i just cant confirm it.

Kroman wrote:

floridafun wrote:it wasnt just a comment about obama being racist. it was beck saying he believes obama has a deep seated hatred for white people. i think the number is 33 now, of advertisers with faux who refuse to allow their ads to run during beck show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIZDnpPafaA

Interesting to note that if the advertisers where really furious about Beck as they claim, why wouldn't they pull all of their ads off Fox as opposed to just pulling them from the Beck show? Seems to me they understand they can market their product to a much larger audience by staying on Fox instead of moving their ads to the Clinton News Network or MisSinformationNBC. Maybe they should move their erectile dysfunction ads from Fox to these networks so Chris Mathews can continue to get a thrill up his leg when Obama speaks.

why pull from the station? they seem to me to be saying they support the right of all of us having differing views and appreciate advertising their products to keep shows on the air financially. they are making their point by isolating it to race baiter beck.

Who's still advertising with Beck? Did I read a post on here to that effect or was it a user comment?

I suspect that these companies know they are getting far more advertising for free by making this move than they would by paying Fox to air their commercials, and to a different audience. And now other companies have pulled out, there's added pressure on the remaining to not appear insensitive. Do you really think for a minute that these CEO's all of a sudden have a conscience? Or think that they the average Glen Beck viewer would be outraged at the comment and boycott their product? If you do, I have some swamp land for sale. Let me ask this. If he had said Robert Byrd is a racist, would the advertisers have pulled out? If not, what's the difference?

speaking of average beck viewers and outrage..

http://www.defendglenn.com/

Markwes wrote:I suspect that these companies know they are getting far more advertising for free by making this move than they would by paying Fox to air their commercials, and to a different audience. And now other companies have pulled out, there's added pressure on the remaining to not appear insensitive. Do you really think for a minute that these CEO's all of a sudden have a conscience? Or think that they the average Glen Beck viewer would be outraged at the comment and boycott their product? If you do, I have some swamp land for sale. Let me ask this. If he had said Robert Byrd is a racist, would the advertisers have pulled out? If not, what's the difference?

The use of Robert Bryd in this instance is str8 out of the Rush Limbaugh play book. Nice try Mark ... F A I L

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:I suspect that these companies know they are getting far more advertising for free by making this move than they would by paying Fox to air their commercials, and to a different audience. And now other companies have pulled out, there's added pressure on the remaining to not appear insensitive. Do you really think for a minute that these CEO's all of a sudden have a conscience? Or think that they the average Glen Beck viewer would be outraged at the comment and boycott their product? If you do, I have some swamp land for sale. Let me ask this. If he had said Robert Byrd is a racist, would the advertisers have pulled out? If not, what's the difference?

The use of Robert Bryd in this instance is str8 out of the Rush Limbaugh play book. Nice try Mark ... F A I L

I would really like to know where I can find all these playbooks you and FF mention - Rove, Limbaugh, etc. Maybe then I'd have an idea what I'm being accused of.

Markwes wrote:

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:I suspect that these companies know they are getting far more advertising for free by making this move than they would by paying Fox to air their commercials, and to a different audience. And now other companies have pulled out, there's added pressure on the remaining to not appear insensitive. Do you really think for a minute that these CEO's all of a sudden have a conscience? Or think that they the average Glen Beck viewer would be outraged at the comment and boycott their product? If you do, I have some swamp land for sale. Let me ask this. If he had said Robert Byrd is a racist, would the advertisers have pulled out? If not, what's the difference?

The use of Robert Bryd in this instance is str8 out of the Rush Limbaugh play book. Nice try Mark ... F A I L

I would really like to know where I can find all these playbooks you and FF mention - Rove, Limbaugh, etc. Maybe then I'd have an idea what I'm being accused of.

They use the same playbook as the Detroit Lions.

floridafun wrote:

Kroman wrote:

floridafun wrote:it wasnt just a comment about obama being racist. it was beck saying he believes obama has a deep seated hatred for white people. i think the number is 33 now, of advertisers with faux who refuse to allow their ads to run during beck show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIZDnpPafaA

Interesting to note that if the advertisers where really furious about Beck as they claim, why wouldn't they pull all of their ads off Fox as opposed to just pulling them from the Beck show? Seems to me they understand they can market their product to a much larger audience by staying on Fox instead of moving their ads to the Clinton News Network or MisSinformationNBC. Maybe they should move their erectile dysfunction ads from Fox to these networks so Chris Mathews can continue to get a thrill up his leg when Obama speaks.

why pull from the station? they seem to me to be saying they support the right of all of us having differing views and appreciate advertising their products to keep shows on the air financially. they are making their point by isolating it to race baiter beck.

That could be very well true. Good point.

meta4 wrote:

Kroman wrote:

floridafun wrote:it wasnt just a comment about obama being racist. it was beck saying he believes obama has a deep seated hatred for white people. i think the number is 33 now, of advertisers with faux who refuse to allow their ads to run during beck show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIZDnpPafaA

Interesting to note that if the advertisers where really furious about Beck as they claim, why wouldn't they pull all of their ads off Fox as opposed to just pulling them from the Beck show? Seems to me they understand they can market their product to a much larger audience by staying on Fox instead of moving their ads to the Clinton News Network or MisSinformationNBC. Maybe they should move their erectile dysfunction ads from Fox to these networks so Chris Mathews can continue to get a thrill up his leg when Obama speaks.

Markwes, what was it you posted, about the types of humor that appealed to Conservatives vs. Liberals? I recall something exhumed from a Playboy blog about "angry sex with Conservative female politicians"... I submit this lame attempt at humor for comparison.

It wasn't a joke. It was a suggestion.

Kroman wrote:

meta4 wrote:

Kroman wrote:

floridafun wrote:it wasnt just a comment about obama being racist. it was beck saying he believes obama has a deep seated hatred for white people. i think the number is 33 now, of advertisers with faux who refuse to allow their ads to run during beck show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIZDnpPafaA

Interesting to note that if the advertisers where really furious about Beck as they claim, why wouldn't they pull all of their ads off Fox as opposed to just pulling them from the Beck show? Seems to me they understand they can market their product to a much larger audience by staying on Fox instead of moving their ads to the Clinton News Network or MisSinformationNBC. Maybe they should move their erectile dysfunction ads from Fox to these networks so Chris Mathews can continue to get a thrill up his leg when Obama speaks.

Markwes, what was it you posted, about the types of humor that appealed to Conservatives vs. Liberals? I recall something exhumed from a Playboy blog about "angry sex with Conservative female politicians"... I submit this lame attempt at humor for comparison.

It wasn't a joke. It was a suggestion.

My ED treatment is just to repeat "angry sex with Conservative female politicians" over and over... boioioioioing.

It's obvious foxnews is not liked by some in this thread. It's important to know what content is discussed on channels they do like. Humor or not, Mathews gets a thrill up his leg when talking about Obama. If you want to watch that crap on a channel go for it. Gives a whole new meaning to "Hardball".

Kroman wrote:It's obvious foxnews is not liked by some in this thread. It's important to know what content is discussed on channels they do like. Humor or not, Mathews gets a thrill up his leg when talking about Obama. If you want to watch that crap on a channel go for it. Gives a whole new meaning to "Hardball".

hehe... hardball... nice... Seriously, I have lost the taste for all the cable news shows, as well as the major network shows... If it's not news on NPR, I dont hear it. All the networks jumped the shark long ago, starting when NBC set the trucks on fire years ago...

I dont care for Fox news because they are so blatant about denying their own bias when it's so apparent. And that chick with the alien cheekbones (see previous comments about conservative women)... I dont care for CNN because wolf blitzer is a pansy... and they may as well slobber on Obama's knob... I did however watch this year's election coverage on Fox news :-)

Pez wrote:All the networks jumped the shark long ago, starting when NBC set the trucks on fire years ago...

Interesting. The article I read while waiting for my tires at Zurchers was from the NRA magazine American Rifleman and it mentioned the fire-truck scam.

The “20/20” crew gave the attacker so many advantages that the project started to look a lot like another infamous news magazine “experiment”--the 1993 NBC “Dateline” report in which NBC rigged General Motors pickup trucks with explosives, and then videotaped the trucks blowing up in collisions, to “prove” the trucks were unsafe.

Anyway, this is the article which turned me on to reconsidering or reinforcing my viewpoint on right-to-carry. I wondered if anyone wanted to review it's content and let me know if there's anything out of line inside. It certainly appealed to my skeptical view of mass media vomit.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=363&issue=003

meta4 wrote:

Pez wrote:All the networks jumped the shark long ago, starting when NBC set the trucks on fire years ago...

Interesting. The article I read while waiting for my tires at Zurchers was from the NRA magazine American Rifleman and it mentioned the fire-truck scam.

The “20/20” crew gave the attacker so many advantages that the project started to look a lot like another infamous news magazine “experiment”--the 1993 NBC “Dateline” report in which NBC rigged General Motors pickup trucks with explosives, and then videotaped the trucks blowing up in collisions, to “prove” the trucks were unsafe.

Anyway, this is the article which turned me on to reconsidering or reinforcing my viewpoint on right-to-carry. I wondered if anyone wanted to review it's content and let me know if there's anything out of line inside. It certainly appealed to my skeptical view of mass media vomit.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=363&issue=003

Nice fixed scenario's in the report. I gave up on the media in this country awhile ago.

Scooby01_98 wrote:

meta4 wrote:

Pez wrote:All the networks jumped the shark long ago, starting when NBC set the trucks on fire years ago...

Interesting. The article I read while waiting for my tires at Zurchers was from the NRA magazine American Rifleman and it mentioned the fire-truck scam.

The “20/20” crew gave the attacker so many advantages that the project started to look a lot like another infamous news magazine “experiment”--the 1993 NBC “Dateline” report in which NBC rigged General Motors pickup trucks with explosives, and then videotaped the trucks blowing up in collisions, to “prove” the trucks were unsafe.

Anyway, this is the article which turned me on to reconsidering or reinforcing my viewpoint on right-to-carry. I wondered if anyone wanted to review it's content and let me know if there's anything out of line inside. It certainly appealed to my skeptical view of mass media vomit.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=363&issue=003

Nice fixed scenario's in the report. I gave up on the media in this country awhile ago.

MOVE

Bman wrote:MOVE

All this conflict over the fact I don't support the same viewpoint of gun control?

It's comforting to know that you can rise above the issues and separate your political views from friendship. If you're just joking please say so, otherwise...

I suggest you get out a little more, talk to people and consider other viewpoints. Expand your mind and let the world around you "stretch you" a bit. I believe you'll be able to enjoy more of life than you do currently. The direction you're going may eventually turn you into a liberal curmudgeon.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogenization

meta4 wrote:

Bman wrote:MOVE

All this conflict over the fact I don't support the same viewpoint of gun control?

It's comforting to know that you can rise above the issues and separate your political views from friendship. If you're just joking please say so, otherwise...

I suggest you get out a little more, talk to people and consider other viewpoints. Expand your mind and let the world around you "stretch you" a bit. I believe you'll be able to enjoy more of life than you do currently. The direction you're going may eventually turn you into a liberal curmudgeon.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogenization

I think it's harsh to tell someone to move because of their beliefs, opinions etc. Let's just eat, drink and be merry... Screw all this political viewpoints and differences.

POTD... there isnt anyone on this board that I wouldnt like to have a bevegae with...

Pez wrote:POTD... there isnt anyone on this board that I wouldnt like to have a bevegae with...

Agreed. I'll buy first round.

Bman wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:

meta4 wrote:

Pez wrote:All the networks jumped the shark long ago, starting when NBC set the trucks on fire years ago...

Interesting. The article I read while waiting for my tires at Zurchers was from the NRA magazine American Rifleman and it mentioned the fire-truck scam.

The “20/20” crew gave the attacker so many advantages that the project started to look a lot like another infamous news magazine “experiment”--the 1993 NBC “Dateline” report in which NBC rigged General Motors pickup trucks with explosives, and then videotaped the trucks blowing up in collisions, to “prove” the trucks were unsafe.

Anyway, this is the article which turned me on to reconsidering or reinforcing my viewpoint on right-to-carry. I wondered if anyone wanted to review it's content and let me know if there's anything out of line inside. It certainly appealed to my skeptical view of mass media vomit.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=363&issue=003

Nice fixed scenario's in the report. I gave up on the media in this country awhile ago.

MOVE

META ... get a grip I was quoting Scooby telling him to move if he does not trust the media here ...