******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Monday, March 7, 2011

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


  1. Yeah, I caught that, as well. Here are the ratings from Friday (I just clicked the most recent date):

    FNC GLENN BECK 1,863 450 855
    CNN SITUATION ROOM 636 138 244
    CNBC FAST MONEY 235 55 84


    Beck doesn't just "outdraw all his competition combined," he's doing a fat fat fatty dance on them all while wiping cupcake crumbs off his chest. I was more surprised to see Chris Matthews so close to CNN, to be honest, than I am that Beck's still drawing more than all the others combined--and then some. But then again, CNN had lost major ground and is still flailing around trying to figure out why (I can tell them in less than a minute, for free even).

    As to whether Beck leaves Fox or not, frankly, who cares? Well, I guess Beck himself might--or his staff, but he's a one-man new and old (radio) media dynamo with a huge following who will simply find him at 5 p.m. wherever he's airing his spots. What the left doesn't understand, can't comprehend, is that neither Fox nor Beck is creating conservative views, they simply reflect them, give us something to chew over (and yes, sometimes laugh at or cringe over), and that's it. We aren't the mindless sheeple they themselves are and are quite capable of being conservative without Beck on Fox at 5 p.m., but shhhh, don't let that get out--it'd just spoil all their petty, spiteful "fun." Naw, who am I kidding? They'll just go back to attacking, boycotting, and demonizing Bill O'Reilly if Beck leaves. Haters gotta hate.

  2. I've got a feeling the story has a lot more to do with the Left's hopes (including the NYT's, but I repeat myself) than any substantive situation. Anyone really think his already impressive ratings aren't going to skyrocket come elections season? Anyone think Fox and Beck aren't 100% aware of this?

  3. The real question is: How would Beck do in a real prime-time slot, say 8 pm? My bet is he would outdraw O'Reilly's audience. I personally much prefer his insights combined with historical context as opposed to hearing more about Lady GaGa.

  4. Hi Bill!

    I found this excerpt pretty good, and pretty much on the money:

    "Many on the news side of Fox have wondered whether his chronic outrageousness — he suggested that the president has “a deep-seated hatred for white people” — have made it difficult for Fox to hang onto its credibility as a news network. Some 300 advertisers fled the show, leaving sponsorship to a slew of gold bullion marketers whose message dovetails nicely with Mr. Beck’s end-of-times gospel."

    Perhaps Beck and G. Gordon Liddy could form a whole new talk show partnership?

    If FoxNews were to get rid of Beck in the afternoon and Megyn Kelly in the morning, I could probably start taking them more seriously as a 'news' network, something I quit doing some months back. In fact, when Beck comes on, I switch my little office TV to ... Wolf Blitzer. Now that alone oughta tell you where Beck sets with me.

  5. The problem is that Glenn's getting a little too self-helpy lately. His strengths are unique news, revealing history, and comedy, and his weakness is telling America to be it's best self over and over. He's feeling out his new power and voice a bit in the wrong direction.

    If he'd just make that a Friday feature, he'd bounce back in a second. It's bad enough that Stu and Pat don't get to talk when Glenn does his whisper/weapy voice for five minutes at a time.

    It's what I need to hear in the morning 1 out of 10 times and Glenn's acting like that ratio is flipped.

  6. Even if Glenn did part ways with Fox, it wouldn't be a big deal. He's building a media Empire of his own, if you haven't noticed. And the future appears to be internet news media outlets, not TV.


  7. Let's see, Beck out performs all his competition in a time slot of 5:00 p.m, when most in the EST are going home from work and at 4:00 p.m. in the CST when most adults are still at work? Talk to anyone in the biz and they will tell you that is the toughest slot of all of them. By 6:00 p.m., people are home and have turned the TV on and even so, Beck's numbers are not all that different at 1.929 mil compared to Special Report with 2.2 mil.

    But those numbers don't reflect the viewers who TIVO Beck, or DVR it like I do to watch later. And it also doesn't take in the late night slot which is available to the Left Coast.

    Someone must be watching Beck because everytime he suggests a book, it flys off the shelves and becomes #1 at Amazon. And Beck is constantly telling viewers not to take his word for anything; research the facts.

    Yes, he did say that he thought Obama showed hatred towards whites, but he later apologized for that. I wonder if the left can tell me a time when Crissy Matthews ever apologized for being outragous.

    Beck's track record of being right is pretty strong. When Tunisia fell, he warned Egypt was next. And he said that it would spread across the ME. A number of left wing bloggers (yeah, I read them as it is good to know what the enemy is up to)said he was nuts. Oooops. Beck also said he worried about the Egyptian Christians, and now what are we seeing in the news?

    I don't mind Beck telling Americans to be our better selves. Matter of fact, maybe it is time someone does. We've had decades of "if it feels good, do it" and look where it has gotten us.

    Yeah, Beck has a stichk, but so what? I would rather watch him than O'Reilly who seems to be making so many excuses for Obama lately I can't keep up with them. And Shepard Smith? I can't stand that weasel. I stood and watched him report from Gulfport, MS after Katrina, bashing Bush for not getting supplies into Gulfport. Or course, his camera didn't show the line of U.S. Army supply trucks lined up behind him on the Gulf Road.

    Here is my suggestion Fox needs to dump someone: Dump Smith, dump Rivera.

  8. Don't you think he's bordered on treason a few times?

  9. Glenn Beck is being forcibly removed from FOX.
    Questions about the AIPAC Neocon 9/11 Scam.
    3 towers, bldg 7, pentagon, shanksville, anthrax.
    Controlled Media must protect Federal Reserve.
    5 dancing Mossad arrested in NYC on 9/11 cry.

  10. laurie said...
    Don't you think he's bordered on treason a few times?

    You're talking about Obama, right?

  11. Don't you think he's bordered on treason a few times?

    Don't you think you're a certifiable loon?

    'Cause I do.

  12. Beck's loss of a million viewers occurred after he started to belittle and marginalize obama's eligibility issues. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpEXnkTSBbU

  13. Laurie, just for my personal betterment and enlightenment: What, specifically, has Glenn Beck done that you think borders on treason?

    This isn't a trap or a set-up for some big argument, I'm just curious what specific acts you feel justify such a charge.

  14. If you watch his show, you know that most major advertisers are boycotting him. It's sad that, while he can pull this large audience, Fox has no way to turn that into a profit, things being as they are these days. While Fox News and perhaps other cable outlets are ready for the conservative message, the advertisers are not yet there.

    It's kind of sad that the bilge that CNN and MSNBC is not considered 'too controversial' and yet any solid conservative message is. Our 'alternative' message will have to live in the 'alternative' media for awhile longer it seems.

  15. Dr. Jim77, how do you know that Beck has lost a million viewers? The NY Slimes? Oh, wait, the Slimes is now partially owned by the wealthiest man in Mexico (once the richest man in the world), Carlos Slim. And Carlos Slim is no dummie. He fully expects a return on his money, so the Slimes, with its ever sliding readership/revenue has a reporter (I use that term loosely) that thinks "Hey, let's generate a little buzz and a little boost for the paper. Let's throw out the idea that Fox and Beck are going to split company. Yeah, that's it. Make some vague assertions, name a couple of Republicans, and wholla, a boost in circulation."

    Here is another thought (if it can enter your head): Beck has a radio show, two websites, writes at least a book a year, and has an hour on Fox. All this is being done by a man who is not well physically. He constantly wears gloves, except on Fox, and has been put on a special medical diet by his doctors.

    But I am sure you will revel in Beck's bad health.

  16. quiznilo, tell me, what advertisers has Beck lost? He lost 300 advertisers? Since when does any show have 300 advertisers?

    This is just so much crap put out by those who can't stand that Beck has an audience and they don't.

  17. Beck speaking of Dem Leaders: "You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you."


    I don't watch him, but I also remember seeing one of his mock lectures where he had drawings that I believe were transformed into a target or a gun, while he was talking about something with more deniability -- but the only way to connect the two was a suggestion that people be violent.
    I remember thinking 'Can he say that??" I'll see if I can find it.

    I will say that looking for it on the web, I came across much more that he'd said to discourage violence.
    I don't know if that has been more recent. I do think anyone who speaks in a way that is meant to evoke strong emotions in the listeners and talks about guns and despised officials is too close to the edge.

  18. He was speaking of the Van Jones, the Mark Lloyds of the worlds, who the Democrats have welcomed into their midsts, through Soros and other intermediaries.

  19. I'll suggest reading Article III, Section III of the Constitution while you're at it. Treason is the only crime specifically defined in the entire document.

    Still, if you are going to make the accusations, you probably should be able to cite the events without having to go look them up. Just a thought.

  20. @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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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

  23. @ 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*?

  24. 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."

  25. @Laurie, here's the full clip: http://lybio.net/glenn-beck-original-context-re-shoot-them-in-the-head-video-clip-found/people/

    (hint: I never watch him, but he's a traitor is not a viable argument).

  26. I love Glenn Beck's show. I never miss it. What I like the most is when he brings historians, economists, and other academics on to give even greater intellectual depth to his show. Moreover, Beck, in bringing in the conservative or libertarian adademics, demonstrates his humility because he never claimed to be an intellectual, only a reader of conservative intellectuals. His format therefore, is much preferable to O'Reilly or any other news/opinion show. I get so tired of being forced to listen to O'Reilly's parade of liberals, all spewing their stinking-thinking brand of "progressive" pulp and deconstructionist ideas. O'Reilly then gets into needless shout-fests with these fools because he isn't really intellectually equipped to deal with his liberal guests. He's trying to be "fair and balanced" I know, but it seems like he has more liberals on than conservatives, and when he does bring guests on he never lets them talk! Grrrrrr.