A Line in the Sand Against Beck

by: colorofchange

Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 20:37


Watching the Glenn Beck show this past month, one might have assumed that Van Jones had assaulted Beck, insulted his wife, and stolen his kids' lunch money. Beck devoted time on a whopping 16 shows to crafting a distorted, despicable portrait of Van that few who know him would recognize.  As political smears go, it was as serious as it gets.

But make no mistake: this attack was not about Van Jones.  Beck, in league with big business groups, is seeking to derail the President's progressive agenda, and taking out Van became the vehicle for undermining clean energy and green jobs.

There was another, more personal motivation too.  Beck was trying to change the subject from the previous week, when headlines were dominated by dozens of major advertisers dropping his show.  Beck had no choice but to up the ante, and at the same time indirectly take on the group responsible for his shrinking ad roster. His distortions not surprisingly found purchase on other Fox News shows, spread to the mainstream media, and rather than let this circus distract from the relaunch of health care and the rest of the President's agenda, Van chose to fall on his sword.

In the fallout, one thing is certain: wherever Van decides to go from here he will be a force.  But now that he has left the White House, it's time to change the subject back to Beck.  

colorofchange :: A Line in the Sand Against Beck

Why the boycott matters

There is no doubt that Glenn Beck has a big platform.  But what supports his platform is advertising dollars, and that support is crumbling.  To date, 62 companies have pulled their ads from Beck's show, including six new companies announced yesterday -- Aegon, Ashley Furniture, Humana, Luxottica Retail (parent of LensCrafters and Pearle Vision), United States Postal Service and Wyeth Consumer Healthcare.  These aren't liberal activists wringing their hands over Beck's distortions. These are the bastions of American capitalism saying they don't want their brands associated with Glenn Beck's extremism.  The only companies left are direct marketers (think Egg Genie and gold coins) and a handful of private companies headed by right-wingers.  

The exodus of major advertisers makes a powerful statement about how far Beck lies from the mainstream. Which is why it's so important to keep the heat on.   Advertisers walking away for a week or two is one thing.  But as weeks turn to months, and Beck becomes increasingly isolated, it renders his rants permanently fringe.  Why would anyone (the White House or otherwise) respond to someone whose views are too toxic for any respectable corporation?

A word on the boycott's origins

After ColorOfChange launched our campaign, some bloggers and reporters tried to discredit the effort by claiming that we launched the campaign to protect Van. It's an absurd accusation.  Van hasn't worked with ColorOfChange in years, and our concern about Beck was far bigger than sleights against a former colleague. We began our campaign for the same reason 180,000 people have joined us: Glenn Beck called the president of the United States a "racist" who "has a deep seated hatred for White people," which was just the latest example of his virulent race-baiting and fear-mongering.

A line in the sand

In the wake of Van's resignation, some have wondered whether kicking the Beck hornet's nest makes sense.  I've got two thoughts in response.  First, Beck and Fox trying to change the topic and counter-attacking with such force is probably a good indicator that we're getting to them; if anything, now would be the time to go harder.  Second, I believe we have no choice.  Beck has promised to take his witch-hunt to others in the administration, and has set his sights on Cass Sunstein as his next target.  He has no plans to stop, and neither should we.

But it's not just "czar"-hunting that's at stake here.  The right wing media machine, of which Beck is now one of the leading members, is the single greatest force standing in the way of change.  They have already helped derail the conversation on health care, elevating accusations of Obama's alliance with the Third Reich to some semblance of credibility.   And they will do the same to the upcoming debates over clean energy, immigration, and every progressive policy priority.  We simply don't have the luxury of ignoring them.  We must challenge them head on, expose their distortions, take away their advertisers, and position their views where they belong: far outside the bounds of any rational political discourse.

That is why ColorOfChange is redoubling our efforts to starve Beck of advertising dollars, and why we hope you will join us.  The time has come to draw a line in the sand, not because of what Glenn Beck did to Van Jones, but because of what he could do to our democracy if left unchecked.


Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Thank you for your work! (4.00 / 2)
I wonder if you can share with us where you see a "tipping point" when a corporate advertiser starts to listen to a grassroots campaign. Do different corporations have different thresholds they'll tolerate? And are some more sensitive than others?

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

re: beck (0.00 / 0)
Watching the Glenn Beck show

...can make you insane


Get a grip! (1.33 / 6)
If the American Left is so pathetic (and it is!) that it can't produce more appealing radio personalities than a retard like Glenn Beck and beat him in the "marketplace of ideas," then instead of trying to censor commercial radio and TV, the Left should be asking itself why its own leadership is so fucking lame.

Boo hoo! Glenn Beck outdraws our own feeble radio personalities, so let's boycott his advertisers!

Meanwhile, there a isn't a law that Obama had to dump Van Jones, whom I admire, and there isn't a law that Pelosi and Reid couldn't defend him like pit-bulls instead of rolling over like sick little puppies... again!

And if you ever wonder...

Is there anything more important than a ludicrous boycott of a retarded TV/radio personality that maybe some of us so-called progressives should be thinking and writing about...

Yes, Buckwheat, there are just about an infinite number of much more important issues, and you can read about some of them in a diary which still hasn't quite disappeared from the front page of OpenLeft, among all the huffing and puffing about Obamacare and similar trivia...

"Jacob Freeze Responds to Obama's Speech About Healthcare."

Read it and weep!


Poison (4.00 / 5)
Beck already had an extended piece about poisoning Nancy Pelosi's wine on TV.  He's literally encouraging murder.  That is more serious by far than calling Obama a racist.  Getting people fired on consecutive days is far more serious than calling Obama a racist.

Frankly, the Pelosi stunt should have gotten him yanked from the air for at least a month.  Maybe permanently.  It possibly merited a little jail time. That was no two second piece of stupidity.  It was an extended piece that was not in the least bit informative or funny but was a direct incitement to murder. Who came to the aid of nancy Pelosi against Beck?  Nobody.  And you think she didn't defend Jones enough?

Get all over this guy but include Pelosi.  Pelosi is the closest thing to a liberal bulwark we have in this country and Beck is inciting for her murder.  It looks like a joke but is very serious.  "Conservative" groups in Dallas were calling for John F. Kennedy's murder.  We all know what happened there.  W wouldn't even allow critical T shirts or protesters near him.


[ Parent ]
Good points, David, but... (0.00 / 0)
..imho it would be better not to feed the, uh, Freezer. His resolute anti-Obama stance and his constant, aggressive  criticism of everybody being only slightly to the right of himself is so predictable, it doesn't really deserve an answer. We won't be able to convince Jake of anything we write anyhow.  

[ Parent ]
Another personal attack from "Gray." (4.00 / 1)
Thanks for your ad hominem comment, "Gray." It serves as yet another illustration of the double standards you and your hero Paul Rosenberg try to apply at OpenLeft, but unfortunately for you, you don't have the power to impose them.

[ Parent ]
Where's the ad hominem? (0.00 / 0)
Did I say you're a bad person? Nope, and I don't believe that. I commented on your political position, as I see it, and on your behaviour. If I misstated something, correct me! But instead, your response once again shows that you're not willing to accept ANY criticsm. It's always the others that are at fault! And so, pls tell me, why should it make any sense to try to debate with someone who acts in that way???

[ Parent ]
Beck is obviously an evil person, but is commercial censorship the best way to oppose him? (4.00 / 1)
The American Left is too lame to defeat Beck in the "marketplace of ideas," so let's stage a pitiful boycott to scare away his advertisers.

Brilliant!

And meanwhile your comment was criticized by Gray not because of the argument you made, but just because you addressed it to me.

So wouldn't we be living in an earthly paradise if left-wing fanatics controlled the media, and erased everyone they don't like with commercial boycotts and banning even on the internet?

Paul Rosenberg constantly tries to "prove" that all conceivable personality disorders and moral failings belong exclusively to conservatives, and his peanut gallery would love to turn OpenLeft into an echo-chamber of Rosenberg's union-bashing and holier-than-thou identity politics, and of course the same "standards" would be imposed on TV and radio.

But if liberals and progressives can't win the arguments, and devote themselves to silencing the opposition instead, then the Left turns into just another faith-based gang, and loses any claim it might have made to moral or intellectual superiority.


[ Parent ]
Do you win arguments by calling your own allies "pathetic"? (0.00 / 0)
Come on, Jake, stop the fingerpointing, and pls start instead thinking about if your own way of making your points is helpful for convincing anyone at all.

[ Parent ]
Beck isn't arguing (4.00 / 4)
He is broadcasting racist tribal codes and offering targets for venting his tribe's anxieties.  

His show is currently being subsidized by FOX management and "advertising" from Right Wing 501(c)3s.  His agenda is fully integrated with orgs like Americans for Prosperity, Tea Bag Express, the Insurance/Pharma lobby and Republican national leadership.  

Of course, CoC or any other outside org, does not have the authority to "silence" Beck.  What we can do is point out the extremist race-baiting agenda of these media figures and ask if that is really what mainstream advertisers wish to support.  

USA: 1950 to 2010


[ Parent ]
Argument is based on reason (4.00 / 1)
The current right-wing onslaught thrives on a LACK of reason. It is about promoting specific codes to organize a anxious tribal identity and put it to work as an authoritarian mass movement.

USA: 1950 to 2010

[ Parent ]
I can never quite tell (4.00 / 2)
whether you are as serious as your prose implies, or whether this is some kind of elaborate, dark, absurdist comedy routine.

Please take that as a compliment.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Thanks, Spitball. (4.00 / 1)
I can never quite tell whether you are as serious as your prose implies, or whether this is some kind of elaborate, dark, absurdist comedy routine.

I have the same problem with what I read in the newspapers, and observe in the RW.

All of it could be the invention of a sadistic but occasionally witty Cartesian "deceiver."


[ Parent ]
Some days (4.00 / 2)
That's how I feel about the entirety of western civilization.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Why change the subject back to Beck? (4.00 / 3)
Beck didn't throw Van Jones under the bus.

Obama did.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


because Beck and Faux (4.00 / 1)
are the are leading the assault on reason.

[ Parent ]
But it was at Beck's request. (4.00 / 1)
If you are angry at Obama, take out his right wing. It eliminates his excuses.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Again the American left is pathetic (4.00 / 1)
and Obama is a seducer whom many are finding has very clay feet.

Hmm. Aren't you part of "the American left"? (4.00 / 2)
Sry, but imho it's really too cheap to do such broad fingerpointing. Less generalisation, more precise criticism, pls.

[ Parent ]
It's bigger than Beck (3.00 / 4)
I just lost a lengthy post about several new proto-fascists on the scene.  

Folks should read Sara Robinson's recent posts at Center for America's future.

Fascist America: Are We There Yet?

Astonished by this character Mark Williams, director of the Tea Bag Express bus tour who took over Wolf Blitzer's panel this evening.  You know, depressed economy, industrial & legislative elites aligning with crypto-racist populist mobs, weak liberal democracy, um . . . . this situation hasn't turned out well in the past.  

We really can't underestimate the right's ruthlessness and charisma.  We have to move fast on these groups before their intimidation tactics really start paying off.

Anyway, great to see you CoC!  You are fighting the right fight (and winning).  

USA: 1950 to 2010


Uh, "northcountry", pls check your rating. (0.00 / 0)
I guess you slipped with your mouse and accidently rated 0...

[ Parent ]
Yes, northcountry . . . (0.00 / 0)
What's up?

USA: 1950 to 2010

[ Parent ]
Certainly only an accident (4.00 / 1)
One way this can happen very soon is by using the arrow keys after rating. Just try it, this will change the selection of the rating field. Could be corrected with a small change in the program code, you just have to take the focus out of the field after the selection is made. I pointed this out before, when there was another case of accidental misrating, but I guess Chris has too much to do. Or it's even a bug of the soapblox software, and that essentially is an underfunded one man enterprise...

[ Parent ]
Thanks for keeping the heat on! (4.00 / 3)
I usually channel surf past Fox as fast as I can, but a couple weeks ago some weird voyeuristic urge or something caused me to stop and watch Beck for a few minutes and I was horrified.  His rhetoric is despicable, off-the-deep-end-deranged and dangerous.  I'm all for free speech, but this adds nothing to public discourse and I'm afraid one of his stupid followers will do something violent.  I say let's starve the beast.

Let's remember, the first ammendment doesn't give anyone the right... (4.00 / 4)
..to have his hatespeech published in newspapers, or transmitted on TV channels. It only gives Beck the right to step on a soapbox and hold speeches to the public, however small that crowd may be. So, lets not get confused about freedom of speech. Calling companies to drop their support for Beck is freedom of speech, too.

[ Parent ]
where (0.00 / 0)
do i find this info on your website? or someone elses for that matter. not trying to poke you in the eye here. but these lists pop up in my email , with a petition to sign. i'm sure that i'm not the only one that would like to have a source to see who beck sponsors are. transparency. thank you, breid

Recent Press Release from Color of Change (4.00 / 1)
List of 62 advertisers that have blocked out Beck's show in response to CoC campaign.

CoC - Sept. 9, 2009

USA: 1950 to 2010


[ Parent ]
Media Matters is also tracking Beck's Advertisers (4.00 / 2)
Here are Glenn Beck's September 8 sponsors, in the order they appeared:

Rosland Capital
Hydrolyze
The Foundation for a Better Life
Carbonite
Citrix (GoToMeeting)
Topdot Mortgage
News Corp. (The Wall Street Journal)
Lear Capital
Clarity Media Group (The Weekly Standard)
National Geographic Society (National Geographic Channel)
IRSTaxAgreements.com
Independent Women Forum
Zero Technologies (ZeroWater)
Loan modification help line 1-888-336-5967

via Media Matters

h/t Sara Robinson

USA: 1950 to 2010


[ Parent ]
beck is nothing (4.00 / 1)
he had no authority to fire Van Jones.  This was an administrative decision.  Don't use Beck as an excuse to say that he is getting rid of all progressives.  He's not.  He's highlighting issues from their past.  The dicision to remove them comes from the white house.

Hmm, but of course Beck is trying to get rid of progressives! (4.00 / 2)
Imho you went a bit too far in denying this. But, you're right, the main point is that Obama totally unnecessary capitulated to the ridiculous demands. And nobody should be so naive as to believe Van Jones voluntarily retired. He just reacted to the missing support by the president. And probably to those horrible WH advisers relaying to him it would be in the government's interest if he dropped out. Damn surrendermonkeys.

[ Parent ]
I apologizes (4.00 / 1)
if I wasn't clear.  Yes, Beck wants progressives gone.  What I was getting at is that he has absolutely no power to do that.  He's just one of many voices out there spewing rhetoric.  The issue here is "who's listening"  and "who's acting".  

and as a response to Sadie Baker below...take out beck, and obama has fewer excuses.  I don't think so.  Take out beck and there are 2 more becks out there waiting for their turn.  one thing I see more that anything else is that the right wingers stick up and support each other much more than the left wingers.  why is that?


[ Parent ]
If you take out Beck, getting rid of follow-ups will become easier! (4.00 / 1)
The point is to raise awareness in the consumer-oriented industry that it will backfire if they sponsor extremists. When they start to signal to Fox and other media corps that they won't support hatespeech, no matter what, it will become increasingly difficult for the new "Becks" to find a place in the program schedule. For the media corps, money even trumps ideological desires, and they won't run shows that can't even pay for their own costs. So, imho the anti-Beck campaign is a good idea that can lead to significant improvements in the long run.

[ Parent ]
This won't take out Beck. (0.00 / 0)
Fox couldn't cancel him if they wanted to - his viewers are too impassioned, and he would become a symbol of how even their beloved Fox News isn't free of the thuggery of the socialist/fascist armies.

Beck is unique.  When he started out in tv on CNN, he was boring and whiny.  It was only after the economy tanked and a black man was elected president that his current persona emerged.  If he had trafficked in the fringe as he was coming up the ladder, he never would have been on national television.  The well of southern working class resentment is deep at the moment, but probably not deep enough to support more than one Beck on national television.  Right wing talk has reached market saturation.  When the economy improves, and the corporate wing of the Republican party finds a way to exercise a little more control over the fringe, Beck will fade away, or dial back his act.

In terms of "taking out" right wing extremist talk, targeting them from the left doesn't work - it hasn't worked with Coulter, Limbaugh, Corsi, Buchanan, etc etc etc.

That doesn't mean it isn't worth doing on principle.  


[ Parent ]
Could still happen. Not as a reaction to liberals, of course. (0.00 / 0)
You're right, Fox wouldn't allow that to happen, would be too much of a shock for their audience. But Fox also doesn't like losing money. So, the changed economical circumstances of the show will have an impact when Beck really srews up some day, saying something that is over the toip for even most Fox viewers, or when his contract is up for renewal.
They'll find a way to get rid of that money burning loser, sooner or later.

[ Parent ]
Taking out Beck (4.00 / 1)
IS sticking up for each other. Beck hit Van Jones, so we hit him. It's really very simple.

I simply don't see what case can be made for letting Beck off scot free.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Maybe its a tree/forest thing (0.00 / 0)
Glen Beck is one tree in the conservative forest that is the US M$M.

While it is true that "the left" can approach the problem by "taking out" each and every tree individually, what is to stop even more trees growing?

Focus on the forest for a moment. I think this may be what Mr. Freeze is aiming at, although I don't want to put words in his posts. Instead of taking on the tree-like Beck, why not try to grow a new forest?

Me, I tend to be a "both/and" type. No reason one can't BOTH hack away at individual trees AND grow a new one.

To the larger issue, one of the benefits of Open Left is that I can read BOTH Paul Rosenburg AND Jacob Freeze.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Fine but (0.00 / 0)
you have to agree that if you leave this tree alone for whatever reason, then that tree, then that tree . . . the forest is still standing?

Color of change is arguing for actually doing something about something which, in my book, beats sitting around twiddling your thumbs any day.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
There's more than one way to kill a forest (0.00 / 0)
You can burn the whole thing, or deprive it of nutrients by growing another one.

Its a matter of tactics.

Go back to the both/and part, Sadie. I'm not saying that anyone should leave Beck alone.

Hell, I've been boycotting Fox and their advertisers for years. It was tough giving up the Simpsons and American Dad. But, they are just TV shows after all.

Actually, boycotting their advertisers was quite easy, I did not have to give up anything. Of course, that's just lifestyle activism, so there really no use in my bringing it up.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
So take out Beck (4.00 / 1)
and Obama has fewer excuses. The math is sound.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox