September 5, 200818 yr Us Magazine Hit Hard by Canceling Subscribers After Palin Attack Good, I hope the same happens to all of the other media hacks out there. Courtney Hazlett over at MSNBC's "The Scoop" is reporting that thousands of "Us Weekly" subscribers have not only called the magazine to cancel their subscriptions -- some reports say up to 10,000 cancellations have occurred -- but have also contacted advertisers and expressed their outrage that they are advertising with the celebrity news magazine that would so blatantly try to destroy Governor Palin.[/Quote]
September 5, 200818 yr Its a rag magazine. However, I bet these same subscribers didn't call when Britney's sister was the cover story.
September 5, 200818 yr Just another attempt from the losing team to control the press and limit our first amendment rights. No suprise there.
September 5, 200818 yr Just another attempt from the losing team to control the press and limit our first amendment rights. No suprise there. Really? That's the angle you're taking? Seriously. Think.
September 5, 200818 yr Really? That's the angle you're taking? Seriously. Think. Isn't that what a boycot is for...to make someone stop doing what you don't like or to gain an advantage? The article was fair, the photo misleading. They cancel TV appearances, cancel subscriptions, quit buying sponser products. Just more pouting IMO.
September 5, 200818 yr Just another attempt from the losing team to control the press and limit our first amendment rights. No suprise there. I cannot beleive you consider this, I suggest you watch the interview with the magazines editor when he gets dealt on LIVE TV because of his inaccurate headline. BABIES, LIES and SCANDALS. He admitted there were no lies and no scandals and basically put his tail between his legs when the pretty young lady interviewed him and called him out on MSNBC.
September 5, 200818 yr Isn't that what a boycot is for...to make someone stop doing what you don't like or to gain an advantage? The article was fair, the photo misleading. They cancel TV appearances, cancel subscriptions, quit buying sponser products. Just more pouting IMO. By "photo", do you mean "title"?
September 5, 200818 yr I cannot beleive you consider this, I suggest you watch the interview with the magazines editor when he gets dealt on LIVE TV because of his inaccurate headline. BABIES, LIES and SCANDALS. He admitted there were no lies and no scandals and basically put his tail between his legs when the pretty young lady interviewed him and called him out on MSNBC. He came off like an idiot. Blamed some of it on having to meet a deadline. What? Are you serious?
September 5, 200818 yr Isn't that what a boycot is for...to make someone stop doing what you don't like or to gain an advantage? The article was fair, the photo misleading. They cancel TV appearances, cancel subscriptions, quit buying sponser products. Just more pouting IMO. No. Consumers may refuse to continue paying for a service for any reason, especially if it offends them. It has nothing to do with controlling the press or undermining the First Amendment.
September 5, 200818 yr Author Really? That's the angle you're taking? Seriously. Think.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
September 5, 200818 yr Its a rag magazine. However, I bet these same subscribers didn't call when Britney's sister was the cover story. I wouldn't put Us Weekly in the same category as the National Enquirer.
September 5, 200818 yr The cover was blatantly biased but geez, as has been pointed out, it's a rag. The same people cancelling will be renewing as soon as George Clooney starts dating a new woman they want to know about.
September 5, 200818 yr If they could've produced some really good pictures of Palin, they would've gained 10,000 subscribers.
September 6, 200818 yr If they could've produced some really good pictures of Palin, they would've gained 10,000 subscribers.I think 10,000 is selling it way short. :lol:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.