Procter & Gamble: No on Imus, but Yes on O'Reilly??! [short, action]

CNN reported yesterday a partial list of companies who pulled their advertising from Don Imus's CBS radio show before CBS made the decision to cancel his show completely.  

Among these advertisers?  Procter & Gamble, Inc:

"Effective Friday, April 6, we pulled all P&G's brand advertising from the MSNBC daytime rotation," said P&G spokeswoman Jeannie Tharrington. P&G would not advertise again "until we can evaluate the Imus situation fully," she said.

So, why does Procter & Gamble continue to advertise on The O'Reilly Factor?  You can ask them here.

•  Take action!

  This is shorter than my usual diaries, but strikes me as a worthy, timely, and easy action item.

  by osterizer on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:13:18 PM PDT

  •  P.S....

    If anyone knows of other companies who pulled out of Imus but continue to support O'Reilly, let me know.

    by osterizer on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:19:39 PM PDT

•  O'Reilly gets away with it because FOx News is

  still getting ratings--and is watched by the 35% whoa e Bush's base.  The rest of us don't watch it, so we don't start  making phone calls about it. MAYBE we should.

  by irishwitch on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:16:51 PM PDT

•  Thanks

  Will send them a little note.

  by RustyBrown on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:57:31 PM PDT

•  A thought on advertiser-pressure boycotts

  I'm working up a diary on this, based on some comments on some of the other Imus threads.

  In the meantime, let me throw this question out there for consideration: if we put pressure on advertisers not to support Fox Noise Channel, and if the wingers on the other side put pressure on advertisers not to support Olbermann or Stephanie Miller or your favorite  lefty of choice, it seems to me that the message that advertisers get becomes a pretty simple one: run your ads during ANY political talk and you'll get heat from one side or the other.

  In a system in which ad revenue, even more than ratings, dictates what programming lives and what programming dies, is that the message advertisers should be hearing?

  Air America's off the air in a whole bunch of cities - Akron, Fresno, Sacramento and Burlington VT all lost progressive talkers in the last couple of months - precisely because station owners now believe, not without cause, that the format can't draw advertiser support.

  I'd rather have a world in which both Rachel Maddow and Bill O' are on the air than a world in which neither one can draw enough advertisers to keep them going.

  by ipsos on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:58:18 PM PDT

  •  I disagree --

    You raise a good point, but there's a difference between merely being a conservative commentator, and spouting the divisive hate rhetoric of Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter.  

    Advertisers need to understand the difference between political commentary and hate.

    FOX survives while Air America struggles, because Air America is open and forthcoming about their political position, while FOX lies about being "fair and balanced" in order to give advertisers cover.  FOX's advertisers can pretend that they're apolitical, whereas Air America's advertisers can't.  

    by osterizer on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:10:58 PM PDT

    •  Great point. Also see below. nt

      by ronlib on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:39:07 PM PDT

  •  A good question. But I understood that

    Air America was kept off of a lot of stations by an organized boycott of a few large corps (advertisers) who threatened to boycott the station owners if they carried AA. As to ads on AA, the general wisdom is that liberal radio just does not sell. I agree. Hate and simplistic idiocy sell. Convoluted reasoning and love thy neighbor don't. Sad but true.
    As to your basic question - it's a puzzlement.

    by ronlib on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:36:58 PM PDT