So, Beck loses the majority of his advertisers, but Fox takes no action.

[Atman]

Heck, he even got a cover story from Time. What's the message here? This isn't any sort of "journalism," or even sound programming. He's got a few million viewers, but advertisers don't want to be associated with his hate-speech. Yet for some reason, Fox doesn't reprimand him in any way, it simply subsidized his show sans advertisers.

That, people, should tell you everything you need to know about Fox and its agenda.

.

[charlie and algernon]

1. I think Fox takes is as a badge of honor

"our guys MUST be telling the truth if the evil commie liberal media is running away from us!"

[WeDidIt]

2. They've decided he's a loss leader

Plus, Rupert Murdoch is taking the Richard Scaiffe role in the new noise machine.

[Orrex]

3. That's why advertisers shouldn't boycott Beck's show

But should instead boycott Fox News itself. Boycotting Beck will simply pull money from elsewhere in the vast reserves.

[mwb970]

4. Beck's job is to engender conflict and divide the nation.

As long as he keeps pumping up the brain-dead morons on the right-wing fringe, he is vital to their cause. Who cares about sponsors? Murdoch would pay for the show even if nobody would sponsor the Creep.

PS. It's "its" agenda, not "it's".

[notesdev]

5. Look at the ratings

He's out-drawing both CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC is almost certainly making a major profit off of him, advertiser boycott or no.

[rurallib]

7. more eyeballs is the bottom line. Beck's binging them, sadly

[Atman]

11. How does one make a profit in TV without advertisers?

Explain, please. I don't get it...it costs money to produce and air the show. If no one is supporting it through advertising, how can it possibly make a profit?

The point being, again, that Fox is willing to LOSE MONEY on Beck if it helps their cause. It tells you everything you need to know about their agenda...they're just pumping up the hate speech.

.

[michreject]

22. And the sponsors are paying

If you look at the numbers, Fox charges a higher rate for the same ad time compared to KO or Maddow. If you're a advertiser, it doesn't make sense to advertise your products on a time slot with nobody watching. The limited boycott will not work in the long run. Eventually those advertisers will return. The ratings will necessitate it.

[kelli]

6. Where

have you lead he is losing ad revenue? I have not seen that.

With the numbers he is pulling, unfortunately I find it hard to believe.

[Atman]

13. Where

did I say that he is losing ad revenue? I said he is losing advertisers. By the boatload. Nearly 40 last I heard. Now, I supposed it doesn't necessarily mean he is losing revenue, but it stands to reason that if he loses 40 major advertisers, the program would be losing ad revenue, too. He could have a brazillion viewers, but if no one is sponsoring his show it will NOT make money. That's how TV works.

.

[tsuki]

8. I think Glenn Be_k is a Communist. The revenue from other shows

is being redistributed to Be_k.

[tosh]

10. I think Be_k is...

the antichrist.:evilgrin:

[Puzzler]

9. They could lose all of their advertisers and still function...

... because they are fully bankrolled as a propaganda organization, and not a real business.

[Canuckistanian]

15. So, Fox News is the equivalent of the Washington Times?

A perpetually money-losing venture?

I don't buy that. Television networks are expected to be profitable. And sponsors are their only revenue.

This HAS to be hurting financially. Sooner or later, shareholders in Newscorp will be demanding accountability.

[BoneDaddy]

12. Why should they?

Rupert Murdoch has more money than God. They can still take the hit and put out their messages.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. He has one of the highest rated shows on a cable news channel

They will be able to charge higher advertising rates to make up the difference. Also, some of his viewers will stick around for the next show, increasing that time slot's viewership. Kind of like how the 'loss leader' concept works in retail sales.

[progressivebydesign]

16. Just read up on him. Typical radio DJ guy, but he's a libertarian which explains the nuts...

I read a piece on whether he was dangerous or not (he is), and I come to find out he's another Radio DJ (not fucking qualified in politics in the least) And he's a Mormon Libertarian. Could that be any worse?

[Fresh_Start]

17. stop supporting Fox in any way

give up American Idol, sports, whatever you watch on FOX, just stop.

[Atman]

18. Actually, I don't watch ANYTHING on Fox.

Nothing at all.

.

[michreject]

24. Sorry. Can't do it

Sunday morning. Curt, Terry, Howie, Michael and Jimmy leading into NFL football games.

[samsingh]

19. the right wing is willing to take loses in their media products in

order to promote their agenda.

why are ultra-rich liberals not doing the same?

[Better Today]

20. I wondered from the beginning why the call was to boycott advertisers of Beck's show and not Fox

as a whole. Surely colorofchange knows that advertising on other aspects of Fox would be used to subsidize Beck, it's Fox's culture to do so. It is the Fox culture that needs to be hurt by advertisers through our boycotting and constant emailing.

So if it bothers you, do the same things you did when demanding companies stop supporting Beck's show and instead make it FoxNews altogether.

[Ruby the Liberal]

21. Maybe they think he makes Hannity look credible?

It is telling either way.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Don't worry boys, Faux is about to hire Lou Dobbs from CNN

Dobbs will more than fill Beck's shoes.