Forbes Magazine reveals to the public how much Glenn Beck makes in one year. New York Magazine calls Sarah Palin's salary 'whopping".
With the magazine and newspaper industries dying a slow and painful death, I guess the popularity of Beck and Palin might sell a few more copies.
The first things they attack are Beck and Palin's book deals. Trying to paint them as money-hungry does not work unless you also agree that everyone who writes a bestseller is also greedy.
Glenn Beck does a three hour radio show every day, as well as a one-hour cable news program. Since these are live broadcasts, he works every day. I know the popular consensus today is that people who work for a living to provide for their family is evil, but why go after these two because of the money they make?
Charlie Sheen reportedly makes $800000 per episode, for one half-hour sitcom.
Ten years ago, movie producers paid the star of the movie, Borat $20 million up front, with a promise of 20 percent of whatever the movie made in theaters.
Stars like Jim Carrey, Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, and Cameron Diaz, sources say earned $20 million dollars per film as well. As ridiculous as this amount is, I have to say two things about this.
One, how do they rationalize paying a virtual unknown for Borat, the same amount for someone like Julia Roberts?
Secondly, Denzel Washington was also on this list, but my feelings are that he is worth double what Carrey, Hanks, and Roberts are worth.
So why go after Beck and Palin for making $100,000 and $3 million, respectively, for public appearances and speeches per year?
Is the green-eyed monster rearing its ugly head again, or is it that stories about Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin will sell more copies in one month than these publications made in the last few years because no one reads print magazines or newspapers anymore?
With Beck's newsletter and website pulling in $4 million as they report, at least Beck listeners are reading something, just not New York Magazine or Forbes.