Stop the Stupid Tucker Carlson Boycott

[DarkWizard12]

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?

I don't care about the peons. I care about the company being stupid enough to buy into it. There is no real capitalism at the point, just a tyranny of a vocal minority.

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.

I didn't say there was anything to right, so I don't know what your heated agreement with me is all about here.

 

[americanwoman]

Boycotting the boycott sounds like a plan!

 

[joko104]

You mean like the Trump Party Keurig burnings and NFL jersey burnings?

Like how Democrats forced Trump to cancel a rally in Philly burning the American flag

 

[Fruityfact]

Is it really free when you can be threatened?

Ad boycotts are threats?

 

[Slyfox696]

Is it really free when you can be threatened?

Uh, yes. :shrug:

Is it really a free market when these companies are being pressured into falling in line with the boycott?

Uh, yes. :shrug:

What good is a free market, if a small minority can artificially silence demand?

If it was only a small minority, advertisers wouldn't pull out. Obviously the number of boycotters are large enough to make an impression on the advertiser. And, if I'm an advertiser, I'm not going to pay someone to cost me business.

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.

Yup. Thank you.

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.

This is not affecting free speech either. Tucker Carlson is still free to say whatever stupid, hateful and bigoted things he wants to say. But if I'm Company A and Carlson's bigoted comments cost me business, why would I pay Carlson to cost me business?

Carlson is not being prevented from saying what he wants. But Company A has the right to not pay him to cost them business. That's free market.

Also, advertising has ALWAYS worked in the manner in which you speak. You advertise in mediums which are most likely to reach your target audience. How many companies have endorsed and supported David Duke's KKK rallies? I remember sponsors pulling out of the WWE 20 years ago when the WWE went to a more mature product.

This is not new. At all.

 

[Captain America]

Just the chickens coming home to roost over at FAUXNews.

Sometimes, karma just sucks don't it?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Ad boycotts are threats?

"Do this or I will remove the money I pay you to show my advertisement" sure sounds like a threat to me.

 

[Slyfox696]

"Do this or I will remove the money I pay you to show my advertisement" sure sounds like a threat to me.

Is Tucker Carlson entitled to the advertiser's money? Is not all advertising purchased with the understanding it is to help promote the advertiser's business, not hurt it?

 

[SheWolf]

Is it really free when you can be threatened?

Making minorities feel threatened doesn't change the right wings modern support of racial discrimination. It's the business owners right, and in this case, it's the right of the advertising to not do business

 

[DarkWizard12]

If it was only a small minority, advertisers wouldn't pull out.

I disagree. Corporations have learned that, not only can they follow public opinion to make the most money, they can also leverage decisions to influence public opinion on their own. Thus, such decisions like these, i think, have little to do with the free market, and more to do with exercising power over consumers by manipulating opinion.

 

[SheWolf]

I don't care about the peons. I care about the company being stupid enough to buy into it. There is no real capitalism at the point, just a tyranny of a vocal minority.


I didn't say there was anything to right, so I don't know what your heated agreement with me is all about here.

If we were debating racial segregation and discrimination, your argument would be entirely flipped

 

[DarkWizard12]

If we were debating racial segregation and discrimination, your argument would be entirely flipped

I don't think the status of news organizations has anything to do with racial segregation, but ok.

Oh wait, that's right, the race card applies to everything...somehow. I forgot.

 

[Manc Skipper]

There is no boycott here. Advertisers are choosing not to associate with someone who espouses horrid views.

 

[Myview]

Does anyone who believes in freedom and practices freedom sign up for Mind Molding Projects such as this boycott?

This is gross attack upon freedom, freedom loving people dont do that.

Ya gotta admit that most advertisers want to be associated with light, happiness, and the zest of life on the planet. They don't like to be juxtaposed with darkness, misogyny, or bigotry and the like. Most advertisers want to sell to everyone They aren't targeting just Conservatives or just Democrats or just whites or just people of color. If you are Tucker Carlson maybe you should seek advertisers who fit just Conservatives. AMAC instead of NAARP, or gun and ammo advertisers instead of Universities. You should be able to recognize the discomfort of generic advertisers with entertainment shows that are only targeting one audience.

 

[Kal'Stang]

This is not affecting free speech either. Tucker Carlson is still free to say whatever stupid, hateful and bigoted things he wants to say. But if I'm Company A and Carlson's bigoted comments cost me business, why would I pay Carlson to cost me business?

Carlson is not being prevented from saying what he wants. But Company A has the right to not pay him to cost them business. That's free market.

Also, advertising has ALWAYS worked in the manner in which you speak. You advertise in mediums which are most likely to reach your target audience. How many companies have endorsed and supported David Duke's KKK rallies? I remember sponsors pulling out of the WWE 20 years ago when the WWE went to a more mature product.

This is not new. At all.

Bold: False dichotomy. It's like saying that just because I own a 1 inch knife then banning all other arms is not a violation of our 2nd Amendment Rights because I am still technically "armed".

As for the rest, you missed my point. The notion that an advertiser is endorsing what is said on any given show is a falsehood. All they're doing is trying to advertise. That's it. Yet people are saying that is exactly what they're doing. There is a much bigger difference between that and an advertising company pulling out because another company decided to go a route that no longer targets the crowd that the advertiser is trying to target to get its products sold.

 

[tres borrachos]

Like how Democrats forced Trump to cancel a rally in Philly burning the American flag

Me too. I've never been a Democrat but I think it's great that they oppose Trump with such enthusiasm.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Making minorities feel threatened doesn't change the right wings modern support of racial discrimination. It's the business owners right, and in this case, it's the right of the advertising to not do business

If it was just the business deciding not to advertise you would have a point. But that is no longer the case. Now a days people target the advertiser and cost them money in order to force them to pull their ads from another company just because that company, or someone in that company, said/did something that they do not like. Claiming that by advertising with that other company then they are endorsing what was said/done. That is a falsehood. Advertisers just want to advertise in order to reach a target audience that will buy their product. For example, a perfume company is going to want to advertise on a channel that women will primarily watch. They don't care what the politics is of the women that buy their product. They just want that woman to buy their product. That's it.

Let's put it this way. Time and again when it came to selling wedding cakes to gay couples I would hear to the effect that "it shouldn't matter what the cake is for, their money is still green and that is all that should matter". Well, advertisers HAVE that model of business. But they are being treated as if they do not. As if they are the baker that does not want to sell wedding cakes to a gay couple. That is a double standard.

 

[Grim17]

Me too. I've never been a Democrat but I think it's great that they oppose Trump with such enthusiasm.

In the case of ANTIFA:

Enthusiasm = the use of violence and destruction of property to stifle any and all speech they disagree with.

... and you think that's "great"?

.

 

[tres borrachos]

In the case of ANTIFA:

Enthusiasm = the use of violence and destruction of property to stifle any and all speech they disagree with.

... and you think that's "great"?

.

I don't recall mentioning Antifa in my post. I'm sure you can show me where I did that?

 

[Grim17]

I don't recall mentioning Antifa in my post. I'm sure you can show me where I did that?

Who exactly do you think those people in that picture are?

Hint: Look at the flags they're not burning.

 

[tres borrachos]

Who exactly do you think those people in that picture are?

Hint: Look at the flags they're not burning.

According to Joko, they're Democrats.

Like how Democrats forced Trump to cancel a rally in Philly burning the American flag

Hint - look at the post I responded to.

 

[notquiteright]

Is it really free when you can be threatened?

Let's not snowflake this.... :roll:

No one is threatened here. A corporation has the CONSTITUTIONAL right of association. If a show/commentator doesn't represent the views they wish to associate with why would you want that corporation to continue funding that platform???

If the show/commentator generates revenue for the broadcast corporation then that show continues. If the show/commentator has something worthy of the rather impressive price tag to sponsor someone will support it.

Just because you start a sponsorship doesn't mean you can't end that sponsorship, Tucker has changed his tone and talking points, some would opine because other rabid right rabble rousers are sucking all the air and big bucks out of the demi-goad room, a corporation can change their association because of that... eace

 

[Kal'Stang]

Let's not snowflake this.... :roll:

No one is threatened here. A corporation has the CONSTITUTIONAL right of association. If a show/commentator doesn't represent the views they wish to associate with why would you want that corporation to continue funding that platform???

If the show/commentator generates revenue for the broadcast corporation then that show continues. If the show/commentator has something worthy of the rather impressive price tag to sponsor someone will support it.

Just because you start a sponsorship doesn't mean you can't end that sponsorship, Tucker has changed his tone and talking points, some would opine because other rabid right rabble rousers are sucking all the air and big bucks out of the demi-goad room, a corporation can change their association because of that... eace

Continue reading through the thread and my subsequent posts contained therein please.

 

[Grim17]

According to Joko, they're Democrats.

Like how Democrats forced Trump to cancel a rally in Philly burning the American flag

Hint - look at the post I responded to.

That "post" you quoted included a picture of those "Democrats"... Are we all supposed to pretend that your reply didn't include that picture, or that picture had absolutely nothing to do his post?

You should be more careful who you give your stamp of approval for... assuming of course you disapprove of the use of such tactics, which thus far you haven't made clear.

.

 

[beefheart]

Is it really a free market when these companies are being pressured into falling in line with the boycott?

A company has to serve the needs of its customers. The customers can boycott they are free to do so.

Conservatives are all for the free market...until they disagree with it.