• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stop the Stupid Tucker Carlson Boycott

Hawkeye10 said:
By JACK SHAFER


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/19/stop-the-stupid-tucker-carlson-boycott-223387

Right On!

(Love the IHOP reference!)

The blacklist is already here insomuch as the mob demands that those slayed in this Purity Panic stay unemployed with no "platform".
Click to expand...

Why is it that people don't understand that Americans are free to boycott or not boycott businesses at their pleasure?

The advertising industry is one of the freest of free market enterprises that was have. They are free to spend their advertising dollars where it makes the most sense for them from a financial perspective. If they think Tucker will hurt them, they will spend their money elsewhere. That's how a free market works.
 
Don't care. Carlson's gonna be just fine, and the advertisers that 'pulled out' are just gonna sneak back in unnoticed when this dies down.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Is it really free when you can be threatened?
Click to expand...

rotflmao.gif


​

People say stuff like you did above and then get incensed that I laugh at them....Do you have any idea of how ridiculous that remark above sounds to anyone who's managed a large firm or division in a large firm?

Maybe it "sounds good" to some folks, but not to serious business managers.



Red:
Say what? SWOT Analysis much?

swot-analysis-header1.png






​


Threats to a firm's interests are like weather. They exist; they come, they go; they change over time. Firm senior and executive managers are paid specifically to, among other things, know what threats they may face, and do face, as well as learn from having overcome (or not) prior threats. In turn, they are expected to mitigate threats by using the tools at their disposal. One of those tools, at least for a media outlet, is to manage their operations and personnel so as not to heighten the risk that extant threats pose to the firm's revenue streams.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
What good is a free market, if a small minority can artificially silence demand?
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? What would the alternative be to continuing to allow those who buy advertising time to choose (periodically change) which media markets they prefer to use?

If the Widget Corp. once paid for 3 minutes of advertising time on the XYZ network (or on their Goofy Spews His Opinion Show) are they now required to continue doing so for life?

It would seem that you want to turn the tables completely and allow the smaller market of media advertising providers to force the larger market of potential goods/services advertisers to sign lifetime commitment contracts.
 
Saladin4 said:
Being a rascit white trash moron is bad for business...Carlsen needs to be shut down
Click to expand...

Do you liberals have anything else to call people that have a different opinion other than racist? And isn’t your comment racist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hawkeye10 said:
By JACK SHAFER


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/19/stop-the-stupid-tucker-carlson-boycott-223387

Right On!

(Love the IHOP reference!)

The blacklist is already here insomuch as the mob demands that those slayed in this Purity Panic stay unemployed with no "platform".
Click to expand...

What I find more amusing is that the "news analysis" networks dedicate significant time to showing the selectively edited content of their (evil?) competitors and then discussing that (micro?) content with their (carefully selected?) "guests". This creates those who profess "hate" for network X (or at least what they "know" about it) based entirely on the selectively edited (micro) content provided to them (exclusively?) by network Y.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Is it really free when you can be threatened?
Click to expand...

Threatening withholding of custom is a supposedly a capitalist mechanism. How bad actors are dealt with.

Money runs our government. They're not any help.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you kidding me? What would the alternative be to continuing to allow those who buy advertising time to choose (periodically change) which media markets they prefer to use?

If the Widget Corp. once paid for 3 minutes of advertising time on the XYZ network (or on their Goofy Spews His Opinion Show) are they now required to continue doing so for life?

It would seem that you want to turn the tables completely and allow the smaller market of media advertising providers to force the larger market of potential goods/services advertisers to sign lifetime commitment contracts.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about the decisions of a business. I'm talking about a small minority of people, of whom, many hate the free market anyway, being vocal enough to pressure the consumption of millions of people. How is that capitalist? I'm not talking about forcing companies to do anything, nor am I saying the government should do anything about it, because I don't think it should. I'm just saying, the free market has nothing to do with this.

Strawman not accepted.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
I'm not talking about the decisions of a business. I'm talking about a small minority of people, of whom, many hate the free market anyway, being vocal enough to pressure the consumption of millions of people. How is that capitalist? I'm not talking about forcing companies to do anything, nor am I saying the government should do anything about it, because I don't think it should. I'm just saying, the free market has nothing to do with this.

Strawman not accepted.
Click to expand...

Hmm... is your objection to anyone expressing their objection to a company's advertising venue choices? How dare mere peons object to the marketing decisions of a mighty company's executives?

You seem very sure of what you are not doing yet are not very clear on what (if anything) you think should be done. My position is that there is no wrong here - thus there is nothing to to be righted.
 
Oborosen said:
Seeing as he isn't a racist, or white trash. Your opinion on him needing to be shut down is just as much a fallacy.

But if being a racist is enough to remove someone from their position. I'm curious to hear what your opinion on Don Lemon might be.
Click to expand...

Call a boycott. See what happens.
 
tres borrachos said:
Why is it that people don't understand that Americans are free to boycott or not boycott businesses at their pleasure?

The advertising industry is one of the freest of free market enterprises that was have. They are free to spend their advertising dollars where it makes the most sense for them from a financial perspective. If they think Tucker will hurt them, they will spend their money elsewhere. That's how a free market works.
Click to expand...

Americans are also free to declare any boycott to be stupid, or similarly to voice their support for said boycott.
 
More Fascist Democratic Party book burnings?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
By JACK SHAFER


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/19/stop-the-stupid-tucker-carlson-boycott-223387

Right On!

(Love the IHOP reference!)

The blacklist is already here insomuch as the mob demands that those slayed in this Purity Panic stay unemployed with no "platform".
Click to expand...

I agree with the idea that journalists should be free to be independant and I don't like the idea of advertisers choosing to drop a journalist because they don't like what the journalist is reporting. I don't like the idea of them dropping people like Tucker either.

With that said, Carlson is NOT a journalist in any sense of the word. Neither is Hannity or O'Reilly. They are political pundits. They don't live by journalistic standards. So lets not pretend that advertisers are attacking ethical journalists that are seeking the truth and shine light on issues. They are dropping a very biased political pundit who plays in biased and highly charged opinions.

And because of this Tucker is going to be dropped. You can't go around calling immigrants dirty and pretend like everyone has to be ok with that. If he wants to be an actual journalist and report statistics on immigration and poverty or something like that I'm sure they wouldn't have dropped him. But if you go on TV and start bashing the "dirty" immigrants or something like that you'd have to be a ****ing moron to not realize that good decent people aren't gonna want to have anything to do with you.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
How do you figure?
Click to expand...
You're asking how do I figure that competitors, or even just powerful capitalists, in a relatively free market, can be threatening?
Are you serious or just messing around? My first reaction is to ridicule your post because it seems so painful obvious that my gut tells me you're being deceptive.... but if you're serious, I will gladly help.
 
Mach said:
Kal, competition in a free market is the very essence of " a threat".
Click to expand...

Yes I know. There's a difference now though. Previously that "threat" was never directed towards groups/people that said things that the "majority" (the loudest really) did not like. It didn't affect free speech. This "threat" isn't about competition. It's about control of what people say that has no relation to businesses or business practices.

We have in recent years gotten into the notion that if an advertiser allows shows to have their advertisements shown during a show then they are in favor/endorse whatever that show says/does. That was never the intention of ads and is still not the intention of ads.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yes I know. There's a difference now though. Previously that "threat" was never directed towards groups/people that said things that the "majority" (the loudest really) did not like. It didn't affect free speech. This "threat" isn't about competition. It's about control of what people say that has no relation to businesses or business practices.
Click to expand...
How is this so "different" all of a sudden?! It's not.

...you do understand that this has been going on since recorded history? I mean, civil rights movements, you don't think they pushed the idea that attacking blacks verbally was bad? Same with women's movement. Same with gay rights. Anti-communism. Anti-confederate flag. All have been going on since before the internet, you do realize?

Even so, rather than using government to help shape our societal behavior, people are banding together with the help of our networked society, to help do it without government? Sounds like progress...sounds like it's right up a libertarian's alley!

We have in recent years gotten into the notion that if an advertiser allows shows to have their advertisements shown during a show then they are in favor/endorse whatever that show says/does. That was never the intention of ads and is still not the intention of ads.
Click to expand...
Oh well. My parents don't watch Neftlix now or like Stephen King, despite having enjoyed both since they were created...all because of right wing nuttery. What do you want to do, force them to admit they are idiots about it?

Welcome to the digital age.
 
My Take...By Buzz...;)

Boycotts like this are a part of Capitalism. That's just a fact. That so many people are so butt-hurt over Trump and his supporters is fairly new. The weaponizing of boycotts for political gains is...nasty in my opinion. Yet we all know that the Libbies will proudly proclaim in the most condescending of tones, that this is perfectly legal and fine.
For the record...Carlson is not "racist". He is not unbalanced. And he happens to be one of the fairest of the TV news editorials out there. No matter what some whiney little bitches scream.

So although this weaponization of advertising and other things is...unsavory and frankly, rather childish. It is not illegal or contradictory to any of the tenants of Capitalism.
It's just a bunch of butt-hurt, whiney little bitches screaming their heads off because...well...Trump.
 
Fine. A person can boycott whoever they want.
It's just more than a little revealing to watch the type of person who, for one thing, needs to be told who to be angry at and, for another, will support a boycott because they're told to.
And the defenders of the now routine boycott tactic puts them in the same group.
Hey, when a guy demolishes the competition ya think Media Matters is just gonna sit around and do nothing.
There're lot of people out there who need to be told what to do and a lot of defenders of the practice right here.
 
Mach said:
How is this so "different" all of a sudden?! It's not.

...you do understand that this has been going on since recorded history? I mean, civil rights movements, you don't think they pushed the idea that attacking blacks verbally was bad? Same with women's movement. Same with gay rights. Anti-communism. Anti-confederate flag. All have been going on since before the internet, you do realize?

Even so, rather than using government to help shape our societal behavior, people are banding together with the help of our networked society, to help do it without government? Sounds like progress...sounds like it's right up a libertarian's alley!


Oh well. My parents don't watch Neftlix now or like Stephen King, despite having enjoyed both since they were created...all because of right wing nuttery. What do you want to do, force them to admit they are idiots about it?

Welcome to the digital age.
Click to expand...

You do understand that in those protests The People boycotted a company that said what they disagreed with directly. They did not go after advertisers in order to indirectly hurt the companies that they were pissed at. They knew that advertisers were just advertising, not endorsing. That is a recent phenomena that is only a few years old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom