11 thoughts on “Saturday Blogwhoring Thread

  1. Rupert and Me: I question the NewsCorp CEO about Subsidizing Glenn Beck
    Last week I called up Rupert Murdock and, in front of the entire industry analyst community and the media, I asked him how long he was going to subsidize the money-losing Glenn Beck show.
    He said that Fox wasn’t subsidizing him. Beck has lost a minimum of 81 advertisers. All he has now are a few random ads, house ads and gold ads.
    Race baiting and suggestions of killing political leaders might be popular on the right, but it doesn’t have to be profitable.
    http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/47123

  2. Spocko and Southern Beale,
    Love your links.
    Southern Beale, hope you saw the posting earlier this week on should the press pay bloggers for doing their reporting (and may I add Fact Checking) for them. You’re a perfect example.
    Spocko, bbbbbbbuuut the business model is you look dispasionately at the profit and expenses. Admittedly, Beck doesn’t have many expenses (a bad barber, a suit from Goodwill, a chalkboard and lots of chalk). And if Rupert M. is caught subsidizing Beck, I question if he would get DOJ and IRS visits regarding campaign contributions. So is there some way he makes money on Beck outside the traditional revenue from Advertisers?
    Like I learned from Watergate, Follow the Money.

  3. MapleStreet
    One of my points is that big media (and most corporations for that matter) make it hard to follow the money. They just say, “We don’t break that out.” In my first sentence in my question I acknowledged that so that he wouldn’t simply say, “We don’t break that out.”
    And at one time I too thought that TV and Radio stations that promote one candidate over another blatantly would be a violation of FEC rules. I actually went and read the FEC rules and wrote to the FEC about one local radio host that I thought was violating them. This was all before the Citizens United ruling where EVEN if air time for a candidate was listed as a contribution it still wouldn’t be a problem.
    Rurdock and Alies are acting as a huge donor of “free advertising” for Republicans and the right.

  4. Interesting. The rules have swayed even further than I thought.
    I couldn’t agree more with the first paragraph. I’ve seen way too many cases where a corporation excuses all responsibility by saying, “it wasn’t us. It was a subcontractor.” (BP /Transocean/Haliburton spring to mind).
    But under the new rules, what recourse do the citizens have? Faux news is easy as everything they air seems inter-related. But say Disney wants to push a candidate. You could try to boycott Disney, but I believe they also own one of the networks (?ABC?). By the time you boycott everything Disney, you’re left living in a lean-to and eating pine bark.

  5. Maple Street. I hear you. One of the things that I did was not to get US to boycott. Boycotts are hard to pull off unless you have a big cohesive group that can follow through on the implied threat.
    What I like to do is to turn the advertisers against the shows/people they are paying to be on.
    So in this way it is not just me saying “Your show is terrible” it is the big corporation that is buying time.
    And how I convinced them is to show how their current views on the world do not line up with what the hosts are saying.
    Specifically most consumer corporations aren’t for killing other people (unless they are a military contractor) so I made that clear to the advertisers that they were sponsoring people who wanted to kill their customers. That and other obnoxious things they say.

Comments are closed.