Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    That Sentence About Glenn Beck

    That Sentence About Glenn Beck

    There is a sentence no one seems to pay attention to in an opinion piece masquerading as reporting  in The NY Times on how Beck and Fox News — supposedly — will be parting ways at the end of the year.

    The rest of the “story” has heartened the left-blogosphere into declaring that this is the end of Beck because he has lost one-third of his viewership.

     Anyway, here is the sentence no one wants to focus on:

    “He still has numbers that just about any cable news host would envy and, with about two million viewers a night, outdraws all his competition combined.”

    I have no idea if Beck and Fox will part ways; the “reporter” for The Times could turn out to be the proverbial broken clock. 

    But if Beck’s sinking numbers signal the end of his television career, what does that mean for “all his competition combined” who do not equal Beck’s numbers collectively?

    Update:  This reminds me of my prior post, The Sarah Palin, The Glenn Beck and The Rush Limbaugh.

    Related Posts:
    Of Course NPR Didn’t Have To Warn Its Staff About Attending Beck’s Rally
    The Definition of Disappointment
    Subliminal Deception

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    @retire05: I never said 300, I'm just saying that a significant amount of "high-quality" advertisers are shy of placing ads on his show. If you watch Rachel Maddow, there are ads for Tide, and Gillette razors and Sears and what-not. On many Fox news programs, you find lower-tier advertisers, hair restoration and gold brokers. Yes there are a few insurance companies that advertise on Beck but the differences in advertiser quality is profound.

    @laurie Oh this is rich, now we have some libtard idiot lecturing *us* about civil tone.

    quznilo, it doesn't matter who the advertiser is. It matters who is willing to pay the price charged by Fox, or any other network for that matter.

    The cost of a 30 second ad slot on any network is based on viewership. The higher the viewership, the higher the cost. Now, to most people, who can rationally process thought, that means that the cost of an ad on Glenn Beck's show would be more than the cost of an ad on Rachel Maddow's show since Beck has many more viewers than she does. This explains why ads during the Super Bowl are so expensive.

    I don't watch Maddow, but if Tide, Gillette and Sears are advertising on her show, they are paying LESS than it would cost them for ad time on Beck's show.

    narciso | March 8, 2011 at 10:34 am

    Actually I don't watch Rachel Maddow. as a lot of people don't. Then again, she doesn't have a campaign targeting any of her advertisers

    @ Curtis- I thought your weren't looking for an argument. I just asked a question. And I learned something. What's the problem?

    @Quiznilo – "Oh this is rich, now we have some libtard idiot lecturing *us* about civil tone."
    Why the quotes around *us*?

    No argument. I simply asked for specific examples of treasonous (or semi-treasonous) actions on Beck's part, and was underwhelmed at the examples supplied. I was expecting some grand Koch/Birch/Beck conspiracy and got something less. Pointing you to the statute was just a nice way of saying, to quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend