On 1/9/2012 6:17 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 1/9/2012 5:20 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 1/8/2012 9:49 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 1/8/2012 1:57 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 1/6/2012 8:36 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 1/6/2012 8:32 PM, a friend wrote:
On 1/6/2012 1:45 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 1/6/2012 12:29 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 1/5/2012 6:33 PM, wrote:

Because it's
not broadcasting in the public's interest. It's broadcasting in the
republican party's interest.

Actually, it *is* in the public's interest. The public have voted
with
their purchases. They buy the products that are advertised on
right-wing
talk radio programs.



a very very effective way to destroy a right wing hate machine like
the
subject radio station is to contact each advertiser and tell them
that
you will not buy their products if they advertize on the station.
If as
few as 20 or 30 people write, the advertisers will start to pull
back.
Tell them why, and tell them you will again consider their products
when
they support programming that you find unobjectionable.

You would be surprised how few HAND WRITTEN letters it takes to
have an
impact

Boycotts seldom work.

If it were as simple as you're making it seem, it would have
happened a
long time ago.


Look what happened to Glenn Beck. People called the advertisers and
complained about him and it got to where nobody except a couple of
companies wanted to advertise when he was on. That was it for him.

Bull****. That never happened. Advertisers didn't desert him because of
complaints. They deserted him because his viewership dropped
precipitously. If the viewers had stayed, so would have the advertisers.


Well you're wrong again, you idiot.

It did happen.


I know for a fact that Beck was
targeted by liberal groups that specifically went after his advertisers.

It didn't work. They were replaced by other sponsors. *Then*, the
viewers began leaving.

You don't know what you claim to know. What you think you know is some
left-wing bull**** you read on some left-wing blog site.


I also happened to watch the show for the entire time it was on the air
and it was clear toward the end that the sponsorship had drastically
changed. In the last six months about the only ads you saw on during
Beck's show were for gold sales. If you had watched the program from the
start you could clearly see a change in the kind of businesses that
advertised with him. So you could see the difference in sponsors and I
also know that sponsors dropped him because of the complaints they
received about him. I don't go to any left wing blogs so I wouldn't have
a clue what they say. But I know people were actively trying to get rid
of Beck for a long time and it was coordinated and orchestrated. It
worked too. He's finished.

Hawke

On 1/10/2012 12:49 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 1/9/2012 6:17 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 1/9/2012 5:20 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 1/8/2012 9:49 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 1/8/2012 1:57 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 1/6/2012 8:36 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 1/6/2012 8:32 PM, a friend wrote:
On 1/6/2012 1:45 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 1/6/2012 12:29 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 1/5/2012 6:33 PM, wrote:

Because it's
not broadcasting in the public's interest. It's broadcasting in
the
republican party's interest.

Actually, it *is* in the public's interest. The public have voted
with
their purchases. They buy the products that are advertised on
right-wing
talk radio programs.



a very very effective way to destroy a right wing hate machine like
the
subject radio station is to contact each advertiser and tell them
that
you will not buy their products if they advertize on the station.
If as
few as 20 or 30 people write, the advertisers will start to pull
back.
Tell them why, and tell them you will again consider their products
when
they support programming that you find unobjectionable.

You would be surprised how few HAND WRITTEN letters it takes to
have an
impact

Boycotts seldom work.

If it were as simple as you're making it seem, it would have
happened a
long time ago.


Look what happened to Glenn Beck. People called the advertisers and
complained about him and it got to where nobody except a couple of
companies wanted to advertise when he was on. That was it for him.

Bull****. That never happened. Advertisers didn't desert him because of
complaints. They deserted him because his viewership dropped
precipitously. If the viewers had stayed, so would have the
advertisers.


Well you're wrong again, you idiot.

It did happen.


I know for a fact that Beck was
targeted by liberal groups that specifically went after his advertisers.

It didn't work. They were replaced by other sponsors. *Then*, the
viewers began leaving.

You don't know what you claim to know. What you think you know is some
left-wing bull**** you read on some left-wing blog site.


I also happened to watch the show for the entire time it was on the air
and it was clear toward the end that the sponsorship had drastically
changed.

Old sponsors left, new ones replaced them.


In the last six months about the only ads you saw on during
Beck's show were for gold sales.

I doubt that.


If you had watched the program from the
start you could clearly see a change in the kind of businesses that
advertised with him. So you could see the difference in sponsors and I
also know that sponsors dropped him because of the complaints they
received about him.

You don't know that that's why they dropped him. It's what you want to
believe, but what you believe and what is real seldom intersect.


I don't go to any left wing blogs so I wouldn't have
a clue what they say. But I know people were actively trying to get rid
of Beck for a long time and

How can you possibly claim to "know" that?

On 1/10/2012 12:59 PM, George Plimpton wrote:


I know for a fact that Beck was
targeted by liberal groups that specifically went after his
advertisers.

It didn't work. They were replaced by other sponsors. *Then*, the
viewers began leaving.

You don't know what you claim to know. What you think you know is some
left-wing bull**** you read on some left-wing blog site.


I also happened to watch the show for the entire time it was on the air
and it was clear toward the end that the sponsorship had drastically
changed.

Old sponsors left, new ones replaced them.

Right, the original sponsors bailed because they were getting complaints
about Beck. It doesn't take a lot to scare off a lot of businesses. The
ones that replaced the old ones were not the same either.


In the last six months about the only ads you saw on during
Beck's show were for gold sales.

I doubt that.

If you watched the show you would know that Rosalind Capital with
G.Gordon Liddy was on every damn day and so were some other gold sellers.


If you had watched the program from the
start you could clearly see a change in the kind of businesses that
advertised with him. So you could see the difference in sponsors and I
also know that sponsors dropped him because of the complaints they
received about him.

You don't know that that's why they dropped him. It's what you want to
believe, but what you believe and what is real seldom intersect.

That's a completely baseless accusation. I am not the kind to "want" to
believe anything. I believe things only when facts prove to me what is
true. I saw, read, heard, that people were out to get Beck. It's not
something I'd make up. I'd heard from numerous sources that people were
out to get Beck off the air. The tactic of complaining to his
advertisers worked. Beck himself said it was Media Matters that was
trying to ruin him.


I don't go to any left wing blogs so I wouldn't have
a clue what they say. But I know people were actively trying to get rid
of Beck for a long time and

How can you possibly claim to "know" that?

I heard Beck say it? I heard the president of Media Matters, David
Brock, say they were having people send letters to Beck's sponsors
complaining about him. Things like that. Didn't you hear any of that?

Hawke

On 1/12/2012 4:44 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 1/10/2012 12:59 PM, George Plimpton wrote:


I know for a fact that Beck was
targeted by liberal groups that specifically went after his
advertisers.

It didn't work. They were replaced by other sponsors. *Then*, the
viewers began leaving.

You don't know what you claim to know. What you think you know is some
left-wing bull**** you read on some left-wing blog site.


I also happened to watch the show for the entire time it was on the air
and it was clear toward the end that the sponsorship had drastically
changed.

Old sponsors left, new ones replaced them.

Right, the original sponsors bailed because they were getting complaints
about Beck.

Prove it.

That's almost certainly wrong. If it were right, new sponsors wouldn't
have come in to take the place of the old ones.


In the last six months about the only ads you saw on during
Beck's show were for gold sales.

I doubt that.

If you watched the show you would know that Rosalind Capital with
G.Gordon Liddy was on every damn day and so were some other gold sellers.

That's far from supporting your claim that those were "about the only
ads" one saw.


If you had watched the program from the
start you could clearly see a change in the kind of businesses that
advertised with him. So you could see the difference in sponsors and I
also know that sponsors dropped him because of the complaints they
received about him.

You don't know that that's why they dropped him. It's what you want to
believe, but what you believe and what is real seldom intersect.

That's a completely baseless accusation.

It isn't.


I am not the kind to "want" to believe anything.

That is *EXACTLY* the kind you are.


I believe things only when facts prove to me what is true.

That is absolutely false. You believe things if and only if they accord
with your extremist political ideology.


I don't go to any left wing blogs so I wouldn't have
a clue what they say. But I know people were actively trying to get rid
of Beck for a long time and

How can you possibly claim to "know" that?

I heard Beck say it?

So? It's just the kind of thing he /would/ say. He says a lot of ****.
Some of it is right, some of it is just for effect.