TheBlaze TV launching on cable and satellite providers nationwide TODAY beginning with DISH Network

September 12, 2012

Writer

Today marks the one-year anniversary of GBTV (now TheBlaze TV). When we launched, our stated goal was to deliver TV over the Internet, not Internet TV. And while streaming video over the Internet was not a revolutionary concept, nobody had ever tried to launch a brand new, online-only, HD-quality TV network before. But that’s Glenn—innovation and risk-taking are part of his DNA. Where others see impossibility, he sees opportunity. (That is one reason why the first-ever show to run on the new network was live from Israel! Glenn never thinks small.)

Twelve months later I am happy to report that we’ve succeeded beyond our wildest expectations. Despite the technical hurdles that are unique to watching our network, over 300,000 people have chosen to subscribe, giving TheBlaze TV a paid audience that’s larger than most free cable channels!

Unsurprisingly, this success has caused some of the major TV distributors to stand up and take notice. In fact, many of the top names in cable and satellite TV have inquired about adding TheBlaze TV to their channel lineups. As a result, we are excited to announce the next chapter in our expansion: TheBlaze TV will be carried on cable and satellite providers nationwide, beginning today with DISH Network. This expansion is in addition to our continued availability as a direct-to-consumer online subscription.

The last year has taught us a lot about running a network and delivering great content to consumers. I wanted to take a moment to share with you some of what we’ve learned and how that has impacted our decision to begin partnering with cable and satellite companies.

Prior to our initial launch I was often asked why we didn’t pursue a traditional cable channel. There were several factors, but the biggest was that we wouldn’t have been able to build the channel we wanted back then without giving up control. To get on the air we would have had to partner with a large media company that could provide us with the staff, infrastructure, and distribution necessary to launch a new network. That was something that we simply were not willing to do. The whole point of starting our own network was to be free from outside influences—giving that independence up right away in exchange for distribution was a non-starter. And so we found another way.

But now, a year later, everything has changed. Our subscribers’ enthusiasm and support has allowed us to make the necessary investments in programming and infrastructure, and we’re now in a position to launch a cable and satellite channel without losing control. We have the best staff, the best talent, world-class facilities and great distribution partners lined up, and we’ve done it all while ensuring that we answer to no one except our own audience.

As we take this next step we are working tirelessly to ensure that we bring all of the advantages we have as a direct-to-consumer streaming network to cable/satellite TV. Here are some thoughts on what we’ve learned, and what we’re going to take with us.

Direct Audience Connection. Media fragmentation has been accelerating for as long as “media” has existed, but the pace of new options now entering the marketplace is staggering. A year ago I’d never heard of BuzzFeed, and now I can’t stop hearing about it. It doesn’t matter if your distribution medium is “narrowcast” or “broadcast,” having a direct connection with your fans is crucial to engagement. For example, even though I pay for HBO GO through Time Warner Cable, the weekly promotional email comes to me directly from HBO. No matter how viewers decide to consume the TheBlaze TV, we will continue to have a direct connection with them.

Advertiser Support. There is over $100 million spent each year on national talk radio programs by advertisers who don’t care about politics on one side or the other, but simply want to reach consumers effectively. Advertising in political content doesn’t make you political, it makes you smart. Our existing clients have achieved great returns on their investments by reaching a large and loyal audience. In fact, we are proud to say that every advertiser that was with us at launch is still with us today. We intend to expand on the early success we’ve had at bringing these talk radio advertisers to TV. (Those same advertisers who spend $100m/year on national talk radio spend, on average, at least 5x more than that on cable TV advertising.)

Audience Demand. We expected to be successful, but we never imagined the scale of our success. There are more people paying a dedicated monthly fee to watch our programming online than there are people watching many existing cable channels that they receive for free as part of their cable package. With that being said, no matter how successful we are as a subscription-only service, we can be even more successful if we add cable and satellite distribution to the mix.

Viewing Habits. While there is a huge proliferation of “Smart” devices in homes, including Roku, Boxee, AppleTV, game consoles, and Smart TVs themselves, consumers would often rather just “watch TV.” They don’t want to switch inputs or choose from a vast menu of options, they just want to “see what’s on.” To a lot of tech people, that is counterintuitive. Why wouldn’t people want to choose exactly what they want to watch? But those who work in media have known this for a long time. In fact, the reason that the most valuable spot on TV is the spot AFTER American Idol is because people like to “see what’s on.” We’ve witnessed this phenomenon ourselves. Even though we’ve been offering all of our content both live and on-demand since launch—people can choose to watch any show at any time—over 50 percent of it is still consumed live. In addition, despite our presence on many connected devices, the majority of people watch our network on a PC or Mac, a device that, oftentimes, is not located in an ideal spot in the home. Many people don’t want to watch TV on their computer, they want to watch TV on their TV—and we’d like to make that as simple for them as possible.

Transaction Friction. While I believe that we were right about the DELIVERY of content moving to the Internet, I think that PAYMENT for content is going to remain between cable/satellite companies and consumers for the foreseeable future. For all the complaining that consumers do about ever-increasing prices, it’s really an amazing amount of news, information, and entertainment that is delivered for one monthly fee. I don’t think that consumers want to have to subscribe separately to TheBlaze, CNN and HBO from three different places with three different interfaces and get three different monthly charges on their credit card. Cable and satellite companies have created an excellent billing and payment infrastructure with over 100,000,000 customers—it’s smart for us to take advantage of that.

Content Delivery over the Internet. No matter how content is currently delivered, that delivery will eventually be over the Internet.

Rise of TV Everywhere. When we began planning for TheBlaze TV it seemed that cable and satellite companies were doing more to restrict content than they were doing to make it available across platforms to their customers. The roll-out of TV everywhere has changed the paradigm. Most of the top cable and satellite companies now have robust iPad apps and online viewing experiences, with more coming each day. This trend makes us feel much more comfortable about our long-term ability to provide great content wherever and however our fans want it.

These are just some of the reasons that we’ve decided to begin partnering with cable and satellite companies to bring our content directly to televisions. There will be some exciting changes as a result, but here’s what won’t change:

The Best Content. In 1996 Bill Gates wrote a famous article titled “Content is King.” 16 years later it’s obvious that he was right. Cable and satellite providers have come to us because we have great content (currently over 35 hours a week of live, exclusive, original programming) and a large, passionate, engaged audience. These companies are smart enough to know that it’s their job to have the best collection of content so that their customers won’t leave.

Commitment to the Internet. Direct subscriptions continue to be a key part of our long-term strategy and we will continue to deliver our content over the Internet. TheBlaze.com gets over 9 million unique visitors per month, making it one of the most heavily trafficked web sites associated with a TV network in America. We believe that this is a huge complementary asset to our TV programming and we will continue to be digital innovators.

Independence. We’re one of a very small number of content providers without corporate ownership. Even though our content may be distributed by the major cable and satellite providers, we remain a fully independent company, not subject to the demands of Wall Street, media conglomerates, or pressure groups. We answer only to those who consume our content.

Thank you for your continued support of Glenn Beck and TheBlaze. It’s been an unbelievably exciting year and we are looking forward to this next chapter. With your continued enthusiasm and support we know it will be another huge success.

Sincerely,

Christopher Balfe

CEO, TheBlaze

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep