I’ve written quite a bit about the Glenn Beck “boycott” — the success of which is being greatly exaggerated by Van Jones’ Color of Change (the organizers) and their willing media mouthpieces.
It’s not just that Glenn Beck fans have organized a “buy-cott” in response. It’s that cable TV operates on a different business model than old fashioned network tv.
Last week, a network TV veteran emailed me with his thoughts on the Glenn Beck boycott.
He agreed to let me post his comments, on the condition of anonymity.
His insights are fascinating because once again, we witness so-called “progressives” continuing to form their worldviews and subsequent action plans upon early to mid-twentieth century political, business and cultural models — then flailing about for scapegoats when they fail.
I’ve reprinted the TV insider’s comments at my Examiner.com site, with his permission, redacted only to conceal his identity.
It’s like I always say: I have the best readers!
UPDATE: Andrea writes…
[N]etwork tv programs are dependent upon ads, but cable tv is dependent upon subscriber fees.
And that’s why boycotts against cable tv shows that target the show’s advertisers don’t work.
The subscriber-revenue thing, by the way, is something I figured out way back in the days when I first got cable, which was in the 80s, when the idea was that cable television wouldn’t have all those ads cutting up shows like the ones on network tv.
This turned out not to be the case for many stations, but the money must be good, and the advertisers as well must be happy that they don’t have to worry so much about all those Aunt Mabels in Aurora, Illinois who write in threatening to stop buying Crisco because they heard someone on tv say “dammit!” Or today’s equivalent, the “activists” who want to remove Aunt Mable and her conservative values from the airwaves.