Michelle Malkin » Boycott Us Weekly: 10,000 and counting? Update: Cancellation notice added

Boycott Us Weekly: 10,000 and counting? Update: Cancellation notice added

By Michelle Malkin • September 5, 2008 10:44 AM

Scroll down for updates…a reader sends her cancellation notice and the rag’s response…

On Sep. 2, I blogged Us Weekly’s partisan hit job on the Palin family. The smear issue hits the stands today. The outrage has spread. And Obama-worshipping publisher Jann Wenner and his minions are feeling the heat.

Dump it:

Three celebrity weeklies — OK!, People and Us Weekly — featured Sarah Palin on their cover, but one of those magazines is reportedly losing subscribers because of it.

Us Weekly, which unlike People and OK!, chose a rather caustic cover line (“Babies, Lies and Scandal”) is said to have lost thousands of subscribers in just the first 24 hours following the printing of the issue.

“I’m hearing it’s 5,000, maybe more,” says one well-placed source in the industry. Another source claimed that as many as 10,000 readers have already cancelled their subscriptions. A spokesperson for Wenner Media, which publishes Us, says “it is completely false that we are losing 10,000 subscribers.” As for the 5,000 estimate, the spokesperson only said “that is false, too,” but wouldn’t comment further.

Keep it up:

“When Us went to print Monday night, it looked like the ticket was falling apart,” says one magazine editor. “They went to print thinking Palin was dead in the water, and their mistake was thinking everyone who reads Us is a Democrat, when they’re not. Readers are loyal, but the base of a political party is more loyal. They don’t need to read the magazine when there’s so much press around it to know to be upset.”

Upset might be an understatement: One Us advertiser has admitted that they’ve received calls from angry former subscribers threatening to boycott their products. “(Us publisher) Jann Wenner supports Obama, Wenner media decided to follow the buzz around Palin before her speech, and now subscribers feel like a vote has been cast on their behalf,” says another magazine editor. “It’s going to be tough to bounce back from this one. Especially if the advertisers get involved. If they get nervous, that can hurt all of us.”

A reader e-mails about a new Boycott Us Weekly website.

Go here.

***

Update: From a reader…

Michelle, It sure would be nice if US Weekly would say more in response than “sorry for any inconvenience!” How insulting to me that they don’t even acknowledge the controversy. I better get my money back…”

From: US Weekly
Subject: Re: Cancellation question (KMM23207865I103L0KM)
To:
Date: Friday, September 5, 2008, 10:24 AM

Thank you for contacting US Weekly.

Your order was received from an independent sales agency; therefore,
cancellations and refunds must be made through them.

We have suspended service on your record and are forwarding your
correspondence to the agency listed below.

NATIONAL PUBLISHERS EXCHANG
16120 US 19 NORTH
PO BOX 9086
CLEARWATER FL 33764
727-536-6624

We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Thank you,
US Weekly
Carla F

Original Message Follows:
————————
NJ
07090

United States
170131775

Mag Abbrev = USW

New Email =

I want an immediate cancellation of my subscription due to your disgusting partisan hit job on Sarah Palin. The cover ‘Babies, Lies and Scandal’ is a disgrace. I do not want this filth in my mailbox. My
account number is xxxx and I can be reached at XXX@yahoo.com.

Posted in: Sarah Palin

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (128)

trackbacks (22)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « 1 [2]

#101

On September 5th, 2008 at 1:23 pm, YTZGal said:

Travlinman #90:
I just wrote the Oprah show advising them that I was disappointed at her decision and I would no longer be watching nor buying her magazine.

I guess the next step is to contact advertisers who spend money on Oprah to express my dismay at this partisanship and that skin color apparently does matter when push comes to shove.
#102

On September 5th, 2008 at 1:27 pm, Jim M. said:

Coca Cola’s reply and my response:

Janice,

I find your response entirely disingenuous.

That may well be your policy, but it is your advertising dollars that allowed US Weekly to put out this partisan smear. It is obvious that what you say, and what you do, are two entirely different things. Actions indeed speak louder than words, and the action on my part will be to boycott Coca-Cola.

Jim

—– Original Message —–
From: Coca-Cola Support
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:13 PM
Subject: RE: Coke.com Other

Thank you for contacting The Coca-Cola Company.

As a Company that conducts business in over 200 countries, we are a nonpolitical organization and do not take a position on political matters. You may be interested to learn that The Coca-Cola Company is prohibited under federal law from giving direct assistance to any candidates running for federal office.

Some Company employees do participate in the Political Action Committee, which is a voluntary association separate from The Coca-Cola Company. The PAC is bipartisan and contributes to a wide diversity of candidates–Republican, Democratic, liberal and conservative. It is up to the PAC to determine which candidates to support. If you are interested, the PAC makes regular public disclosure of all contributions, and its reports are on file with the Federal Election Commission in Washington, D.C.

If you have additional questions or comments to share, please feel free to contact us again.

Janice
Industry and Consumer Affairs
The Coca-Cola Company

—–Original Message—–

Sent: 9/5/2008 11:32:04 AM
To: Coca-Cola.Support@na.ko.com
Subject: Coke.com Other

US

Other

It has been brought to my attention that you pay for advertising in a publication called US Weekly. That magazine has recently published a vile and despicable slanderous smear of Sarah Palin.

You are certainly entitled to your views and to position your company as you see fit. And I am certainly entitled to my views, and to voice my displeasure by taking my business elsewhere. It is also my right to voice my displeasure and support an active campaign to boycott your organization.
#103

On September 5th, 2008 at 1:43 pm, joannmandolin said:

Here is my email to Coke-

Since I stopped buying coke when you announced your Ramadan cans, there was no need to boycott you now, as you sponsor US mag and their sleazy hit on Sarah Palin and her family. I don’t miss you.

PS, You can’t beat the Real Thing!
The Maverick & SaraCuda!
#104

On September 5th, 2008 at 1:49 pm, larksoprano said:

I bought that rag once in awhile at the checkout line–no mas! How despicable. Or maybe I’ll buy some copies and throw them in Kwame’s jail cell!!
#105

On September 5th, 2008 at 1:56 pm, Bruce said:

I’m hoping that Oprah’s viewers are smart enough to see the bias the way the Us readers were. That’ll put her ratings in the basement.

If they had any brains they wouldn’t be watching that moron to start with. Get real! Same thing goes for the morons who watch and are the audience for The View and others like them.
#106

On September 5th, 2008 at 2:00 pm, GaMidnightRider said:

Well i looked at the list and only saw 2 companies we use in any form or fashion. I can do with out Coca Cola, I can drink my Jack Daniels straight. We use walmart for somethings but only a very few items. We will be getting these items from a local grocer from now on. This just shows how bias the media is toward B. HUSSIEN. Look at the Oprah thing. She had B. HUSSIEN on but says she does not want to have Sarah Palin on cause she did not want her show to be political.
Guess what OPRAH… TO LATE YOUR LIBERAL VIEWS ARE KNOW AND YOU SCARED OF THE BARRACUDA SHOWING WHAT A LOONEY TUNE YOU REALLY ARE !!!!!! TELL THE TRUTH YOU SCARED OF SARAH PALIN BEING MORE OF A REAL WOMAN THAN YOU ARE.
#107

On September 5th, 2008 at 2:01 pm, guitarplayer said:

On September 5th, 2008 at 1:56 pm, Bruce said:

If they had any brains they wouldn’t be watching that moron to start with. Get real! Same thing goes for the morons who watch and are the audience for The View and others like them.

The Us Weekly readers caught on. That gives me some hope.
#108

On September 5th, 2008 at 2:15 pm, Micheleeroo said:

I don’t subscribe, but I DO pull it off the shelf sometimes while I’m waiting in line at the store. Now, US LIKES that I do that because it gets them more incidental exposure for their advertisers. They’d rather I glance through it than ignore it completely.

Knowing this, even if you don’t subscribe, call and tell them you won’t even pick up the mag at all. They won’t be happy. If I were the publisher, I’d want all the exposure to my magazine i could get, however incidental.
#109

On September 5th, 2008 at 2:16 pm, Last Massachusetts Conservative said:

So much for contacting advertisers. Response I received:

Thank you for contacting The Coca-Cola Company.

As a Company that conducts business in over 200 countries, we are a nonpartisan business organization and it is not our place to take positions on political matters unrelated to the beverage industry.

Though our role as a business is inherently limited in taking a political position, throughout the world we strive to do all we can to set an example and uphold the highest standards of diversity. We believe in an inclusive and diverse workplace environment. We are focused on strategic workplace programs that help assure the success of our commitment to embracing the similarities and differences of people, cultures and ideas.

Should you have additional questions or comments, we invite you to contact us again.

Jeffrey
Industry and Consumer Affairs
The Coca-Coca Company
#110

On September 5th, 2008 at 2:16 pm, Micheleeroo said:

PS–I already contacted four of the advertisers on the list, which I do patronize, and complained. If everyone does that, they WILL get the message. Some of them said they’ve alredy gotten a few calls. We CAN make a difference.
#111

On September 5th, 2008 at 2:24 pm, Last Massachusetts Conservative said:

You are probably right Micheleeroo. If you think about it the advertisers have to respond with a “neutral” statement. Just HOPE that they have a behind-the-scenes talk with the offending publications and threaten to CHANGE their advertising if this continuies?

Is this called HOPE and CHANGE? Sorry for any copyright infringement Obama!
#112

On September 5th, 2008 at 2:32 pm, mjsamuelson said:

What sickens me is that US Weekly had so many subscribers to begin with. Sarah Palin isn’t the first person whose life they’ve treated with such obvious disregard for anything other than an agenda. And, it’s a complete piece of trash.

Take the money you were or would spend on trash like US Weekly and People and subscribe to National Review instead. Or donate the money to a campaign. OR, put it in an interest-earning savings account.

Yes, I’m a snob, and I have no patience.
#113

On September 5th, 2008 at 2:32 pm, Republicanvet said:

On September 5th, 2008 at 10:46 am, markie13 said:

It’ll be hard to boycott/cancel my subscription when I don’t buy it anyway…but I’ll try.

If you read the article, it’s clear their advertisers are nervous, and the editors are nervous about their advertisers jumping ship.

I say, let their advertisers know of your concerns as well when canceling your subscriptions. If not subscribed, let them know anyway.
#114

On September 5th, 2008 at 2:37 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

On September 5th, 2008 at 1:08 pm, Sanddog said:

On September 5th, 2008 at 11:03 am, 30 pcs of silver said:

This is what happens when you allow politics to drive your business decisions.

Exactly. I own a business is a somewhat moonbatty town and I’m constantly surprised by the number of business owners who put peace signs, Obama posters and leftist literature in their windows and then whine when the tourists from Texas refuse to shop with them.

sanddog,
They could learn a lot from you.
#115

On September 5th, 2008 at 3:01 pm, Common Sense said:

People Magazine isn’t in the same class as the others. Their articles are usually quite fair. I believe their interview with the Palin family is in today’s issue.

In addition to celebrities, they always have articles on regular Americans doing great things helping others.

It’s fluff, but it’s nice to relax on the weekend with some mind candy.
#116

On September 5th, 2008 at 3:10 pm, DMC said:

I disagree with those who want to boycott Oprah (I haven’t seen her show in years, btw, and didn’t watch it much ever).

She’s not a reporter and her show isn’t hard news. The only celebrities and public figures she books are those whom she wants to fawn over and adore (they of course fawn and adore right back).

James Frey’s second appearance is of course the exception, as he had sinned against Oprah and needed to be hectored into a proper public confession and repentance.

Oprah may not be the Messiah, but she knows a thing or two about dispensing Truth and Wisdom (and the occasional prezzies) from on high to her enraptured acolytes.

She felt a sacred duty to abandon her feminist choice (Hillary) so she might lead her followers to the promised land of the Obamessiah.
#117

On September 5th, 2008 at 3:36 pm, deedledee said:

Another media problem to keep in mind is the blatant favoring of Obama by Entertainment Tonight and it’s even more trashy sister, The Insider and even Inside Edition which has more useful human interest stories. I usually don’t watch them but became fascinated by their Obama-only promos of upcoming shows; when I’d watch they would only show Obama-friendly stories and even when McCain became the presumptive nominee there was no coverage. They have started doing coverage of Palin but some is too negative compared to the fawning over Obama. I suggest writing them and asking for fair coverage. Even if we don’t watch them, those who do vote and need to see both sides.
#118

On September 5th, 2008 at 3:41 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

Palin-Obama Comparison Chart
#119

On September 5th, 2008 at 3:42 pm, deedledee said:

Also, check out the OK Magazine double covers first…Obama’s “Life With My Girls” is on the front and, new to the news cycle, Sarah Palin is put on the back with the headline “A Mother’s Painful Choice.” Sheesh, Obama has had enough front covers, why couldn’t he have been on the back!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26514841/
#120

On September 5th, 2008 at 3:59 pm, ammo john said:

You can tell that it was a story bashing Conservatives. How? If it was against The One, the comments section would’ve been laced with F-words, claims of racism, and wishes of death to the families of the writers. That’s the norm from the nuts at DailyKooks (didn’t test sheets have ‘DK’ bubbles to fill in when you Don’t Know?) and at HuffPost (huffing paint again, I guess).
#121

On September 5th, 2008 at 4:51 pm, RetFireman said:

“When Us went to print Monday night, it looked like the ticket was falling apart,” says one magazine editor. “They went to print thinking Palin was dead in the water,

And exactly who was the ticket looking like it was falling apart to? not to the Republicans. The VAST majority of Republicans were doing flips and twists over what a great choice she was. We all knew that everything that was coming out in the media was nothing more than the typical Liberal lies surrounding a strong, independant Republican woman…something that is the equivalent to one of the Four Riders as far as Liberalism is concerned.

For them to make that statement alone shows that the only purpose behind that cover and that story was to “Stick the fork in her” becaus ethey figured she was done. It would serve as some of that icing on the Liberals attack job.

There used to be laws governing libel and supposed reporting that was merely there to damage and destroy another human being. I don;t know what happened to such laws, if they do still exist or not, but if they do and there is not a single District Attorney or Federal Prosecutor anywhere in this country that would use them against these things, then it looks like we are in bigger trouble on the whole “Rule of Law” front than anyone ever thought.

When things such as what is happening to Governor Sarah Palin are allowed to happen once, let alone for the last two weeks, and no one does anything about it, then we have some serious issues in this country.

When all these strong pro-feminism leaders, such as Oprah and others of her “caliber” refuse to speak out against what is happening, should they really be allowed to continue in the mabber that they have been?

It is not just US Magazone, their other publications and advertisers that need to be boycotted. There is a great long list that is continually growing by the hour of television shows, talking heads, celebrities, news outlets and the like that need to be turned off, tuned out and told to go to Hell. There needs to be a data base of all those guilty of what is happening to Palin so that people will know exactly how to speak out against these low-lifes and speak up for Mrs. Palin and her family.

40+ years of Liberalism and it’s lies is long enough. To use the language that they may understand against them…”Let the Revolutionn begin now”

Revolt against the Liberals and their hypocrisy. Bocott any and all outlets that spread the Gov. Palin lies and smears.

And regardless of political beliefs…stand up for what is right and vote a straight Republican ticket on November 4th.
#122

On September 5th, 2008 at 6:03 pm, bedje said:

L M C #109. I just wonder Jeffrey, what in the snot does your reply (diversity in the workplace environment) have to do with your sponsorship of that rag? Jeeeze!!!
#123

On September 5th, 2008 at 6:21 pm, joao1960 said:

A small protest on my part. I just pick up the first US Rag in the stack and replace it with the back page facing out. (Kind of an ‘out of site’ thing.)
#124

On September 5th, 2008 at 6:21 pm, joao1960 said:

A small protest on my part. I just pick up the first US Rag in the stack and replace it with the back page facing out. (Kind of an ‘out of site’ thing.)
#125

On September 5th, 2008 at 7:24 pm, Member-VRWC said:

I encourage everyone, while you’ve got a good head of steam going, not to stop with just boycotting US Weekly.

Almost every newspaper and magazine has a liberal slant. Buy them and you’re supporting the liberal message with your hard-earned money.

Are you subscribing to Time? Newsweek? Sports Illustrated? Business Week? If so, why?

Reading those rags causes you to lose serious IQ points and you’re making people like Jann Wenner even wealthier than they already are.

Cancel! Cancel! Cancel!
#126

On September 6th, 2008 at 1:52 am, RabbidSquirrel said:

Double posting same entry….

I saw tonight on the local gas station magazine rack that US Weekly already has a September 8th edition out on the shelves with a completely new cover story! LOL

I saw that the Govenor wasnt on it, so out of curiosity I walked over just to check out if the date was an old version or not.
#127

On September 6th, 2008 at 7:17 pm, windchaser73 said:

Darn! I almost wish I had a subscription just so I could cancel it!
#128

On September 6th, 2008 at 11:37 pm, Politicalguano said:

The print and TV media are losing subscribers/viewers by the millions every year. Their reaction has been to become less truthful, more biased, trashier in every way, and guess what? This year they will lose a record number of subscribers/viewers. Their reaction will be the same - it is the MSNBC syndrome. Too bigotted and partisan and losing viewers? Hire Oldodorman and have him perform his satan worship on air and call it a show. No one can accuse hollywood of being run by faithful Jews - the hollywood management crowd switched to old Beelzebub long ago.
If you see an US magazine in a waiting room, take it to the restroom and trash it or better yet -edit it and make corrections!