• 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

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,746
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
By JACK SHAFER

But as much as the Carlson show pains me, the calls by activists for an advertiser boycott pain me more. As I wrote in 2017 when Fox’s Bill O’Reilly faced similar calls for an advertiser boycott, I’m made queasy by crusades that charge corporate advertisers with the power to decide what ideas should be discussed and how they should be discussed. Seriously, I barely trust IHOP to make my breakfast. Why would I expect it to vet my cable news content for me?
.
.
.
Ideally, journalists are independent of the companies that buy the advertisements adjacent to their copy. But then advertisers are independent, too—of the journalists whose pages and minutes they subsidize with ads. The boycotters don’t see that independence. An ad, for them, is an act of agreement with content. Without boarding the slippery slope, we can see the media wreckage that will follow such a viewpoint should it become ascendant. Advertisers tend to be timid, overreactive, running from controversy and conflict, and in times of perceived crisis, their timidity spreads to publishers, which is bad for journalism. It’s easy to imagine today’s boycotts turning into tomorrow’s blacklist. Students of the McCarthyite 1950s can tell you all you want to know about the hundreds of blacklisted performers and entertainers who were barred from work for years because of their political transgressions
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".
 
I never understood why these companies cave to these protesters. They are simply a loud minority, many of whom likely dont use the products or services they are boycotting in the first place. They can simply ignore them and the issue would go away without much, if any, blowback. In some circumstances they could even use it as a PR boost by coming out in defense of the person and likely drive up sales.
 
I never understood why these companies cave to these protesters. They are simply a loud minority, many of whom likely dont use the products or services they are boycotting in the first place. They can simply ignore them and the issue would go away without much, if any, blowback. In some circumstances they could even use it as a PR boost by coming out in defense of the person and likely drive up sales.

Being a rascit white trash moron is bad for business...Carlsen needs to be shut down
 
Being a rascit white trash moron is bad for business...Carlsen needs to be shut down

"To Hell with freedom of minds, brute force, shut it down" is where you are at.
 
Last edited:
Being a rascit white trash moron is bad for business...Carlsen needs to be shut down

Carlson is one of the most watched primetime infotainment shows on TV, you can wish for his demise all you want but it isn't happening anytime soon.
 
Being a rascit white trash moron is bad for business...Carlsen needs to be shut down

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

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.
 
Nobody sane gives a **** about Tucker Carlson. If he gets boycott IDGAF. -shrug-
 
Nobody sane gives a **** about Tucker Carlson. If he gets boycott IDGAF. -shrug-

You are ready to declare 1/3 of the nation insane right?

Even the Soviets would never have dared try that.

They knew better.
 
Let me say again that it shocks me, I mean it really shocks me, that Tucker Carlson is THE GUY.

I used to watch him some in his bow tie days, I never thought that much about him, and is resume never showed any hints.
 
By JACK SHAFER

But as much as the Carlson show pains me, the calls by activists for an advertiser boycott pain me more. As I wrote in 2017 when Fox’s Bill O’Reilly faced similar calls for an advertiser boycott, I’m made queasy by crusades that charge corporate advertisers with the power to decide what ideas should be discussed and how they should be discussed. Seriously, I barely trust IHOP to make my breakfast. Why would I expect it to vet my cable news content for me?
.
.
.
Ideally, journalists are independent of the companies that buy the advertisements adjacent to their copy. But then advertisers are independent, too—of the journalists whose pages and minutes they subsidize with ads. The boycotters don’t see that independence. An ad, for them, is an act of agreement with content. Without boarding the slippery slope, we can see the media wreckage that will follow such a viewpoint should it become ascendant. Advertisers tend to be timid, overreactive, running from controversy and conflict, and in times of perceived crisis, their timidity spreads to publishers, which is bad for journalism. It’s easy to imagine today’s boycotts turning into tomorrow’s blacklist. Students of the McCarthyite 1950s can tell you all you want to know about the hundreds of blacklisted performers and entertainers who were barred from work for years because of their political transgressions
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".
Outlets such as Fox, CNN, and others can choose to adopt the subscription model as have HBO, STARS, and others. By doing so, they won't have to concern themselves with advertisers.

Indeed, "back in the day," the news division of television networks weren't required to function as revenue/profit centers. Furthermore, Fox, more so and more aggressively and more innovatively than other networks, embraced the for-profit model of current events information delivery and discussion, so much so that the bulk of Fox News programming is entertainment rather than news and news analysis.

When I approached Fox to gain access to their studios and staff for a story about the nature of their news operations, I was told that if I wanted to do a piece on Fox, I should do a profile of Shepard Smith, their main news anchorman. I should be careful, they told me, to distinguish between Smith, a newsman, and their bevy of more notorious personalities—Bill O’Reilly, Neil Cavuto, Glenn Beck, and Greta Van Susteren. They aren’t really news people, I was told; they are editorialists and ought to be analyzed as such. They are analogous, Fox suggested, to the editorial and op-ed opinion pages of newspapers, which ought not be confused with the straight news coverage.
-- Terry McDermott

Note:
What time of the day does Fox air Smith's program? The middle of the day when many folks aren't able to watch it. Does Fox even run a legit news anchor in the evening prime time?​



Red:
Advertisers don't "decide what ideas should be discussed and how they should be discussed." Advertisers decide with what editorial content they want their name associated and they decide what editorial content (and editorialists) they are willing to support by purchasing ads during that content's/author's delivery.

Pink:
When the ads pay for the airing of what amounts to an hour-long series of editorials delivered by one person, viewers, be they boycotters or supporters, are right to infer that advertisers are supportive of the content/stances the editorialist in question articulates and embraces.

Blue:
The sponsors aren't vetting the content. They're simply determining whether they want to be associated with it. We don't see advertisers withdrawing from Fox's (or any other network's) actual news and news analysis programs.
 
Outlets such as Fox, CNN, and others can choose to adopt the subscription model as have HBO, STARS, and others. By doing so, they won't have to concern themselves with advertisers.

Indeed, "back in the day," the news division of television networks weren't required to function as revenue/profit centers. Furthermore, Fox, more so and more aggressively and more innovatively than other networks, embraced the for-profit model of current events information delivery and discussion, so much so that the bulk of Fox News programming is entertainment rather than news and news analysis.

When I approached Fox to gain access to their studios and staff for a story about the nature of their news operations, I was told that if I wanted to do a piece on Fox, I should do a profile of Shepard Smith, their main news anchorman. I should be careful, they told me, to distinguish between Smith, a newsman, and their bevy of more notorious personalities—Bill O’Reilly, Neil Cavuto, Glenn Beck, and Greta Van Susteren. They aren’t really news people, I was told; they are editorialists and ought to be analyzed as such. They are analogous, Fox suggested, to the editorial and op-ed opinion pages of newspapers, which ought not be confused with the straight news coverage.
-- Terry McDermott

Note:
What time of the day does Fox air Smith's program? The middle of the day when many folks aren't able to watch it. Does Fox even run a legit news anchor in the evening prime time?​



Red:
Advertisers don't "decide what ideas should be discussed and how they should be discussed." Advertisers decide with what editorial content they want their name associated and they decide what editorial content (and editorialists) they are willing to support by purchasing ads during that content's/author's delivery.

Pink:
When the ads pay for the airing of what amounts to an hour-long series of editorials delivered by one person, viewers, be they boycotters or supporters, are right to infer that advertisers are supportive of the content/stances the editorialist in question articulates and embraces.

Blue:
The sponsors aren't vetting the content. They're simply determining whether they want to be associated with it. We don't see advertisers withdrawing from Fox's (or any other network's) actual news and news analysis programs.

We see corporate America assaulting freedom, we see corporate America spreading their corruption ever further and let's be sure to keep in mind that today's catastrophic to America very very low quality of journalism is mostly Corporate Americas fault.




Your argument is rejected.
 
Last edited:
By JACK SHAFER


But as much as the Carlson show pains me, the calls by activists for an advertiser boycott pain me more. As I wrote in 2017 when Fox’s Bill O’Reilly faced similar calls for an advertiser boycott, I’m made queasy by crusades that charge corporate advertisers with the power to decide what ideas should be discussed and how they should be discussed. Seriously, I barely trust IHOP to make my breakfast. Why would I expect it to vet my cable news content for me?
.
.
.
Ideally, journalists are independent of the companies that buy the advertisements adjacent to their copy. But then advertisers are independent, too—of the journalists whose pages and minutes they subsidize with ads. The boycotters don’t see that independence. An ad, for them, is an act of agreement with content. Without boarding the slippery slope, we can see the media wreckage that will follow such a viewpoint should it become ascendant. Advertisers tend to be timid, overreactive, running from controversy and conflict, and in times of perceived crisis, their timidity spreads to publishers, which is bad for journalism. It’s easy to imagine today’s boycotts turning into tomorrow’s blacklist. Students of the McCarthyite 1950s can tell you all you want to know about the hundreds of blacklisted performers and entertainers who were barred from work for years because of their political transgressions
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".
Outlets such as Fox, CNN, and others can choose to adopt the subscription model as have HBO, STARS, and others. By doing so, they won't have to concern themselves with advertisers.


Indeed, "back in the day," the news division of television networks weren't required to function as revenue/profit centers. Furthermore, Fox, more so and more aggressively and more innovatively than other networks, embraced the for-profit model of current events information delivery and discussion, so much so that the bulk of Fox News programming is entertainment rather than news and news analysis.
When I approached Fox to gain access to their studios and staff for a story about the nature of their news operations, I was told that if I wanted to do a piece on Fox, I should do a profile of Shepard Smith, their main news anchorman. I should be careful, they told me, to distinguish between Smith, a newsman, and their bevy of more notorious personalities—Bill O’Reilly, Neil Cavuto, Glenn Beck, and Greta Van Susteren. They aren’t really news people, I was told; they are editorialists and ought to be analyzed as such. They are analogous, Fox suggested, to the editorial and op-ed opinion pages of newspapers, which ought not be confused with the straight news coverage.
-- Terry McDermott


Note:
What time of the day does Fox air Smith's program? The middle of the day when many folks aren't able to watch it. Does Fox even run a legit news anchor in the evening prime time?​

Red:
Advertisers don't "decide what ideas should be discussed and how they should be discussed." Advertisers decide with what editorial content they want their name associated and they decide what editorial content (and editorialists) they are willing to support by purchasing ads during that content's/author's delivery.

Pink:
When the ads pay for the airing of what amounts to an hour-long series of editorials delivered by one person, viewers, be they boycotters or supporters, are right to infer that advertisers are supportive of the content/stances the editorialist in question articulates and embraces.


Blue:
The sponsors aren't vetting the content. They're simply determining whether they want to be associated with it. We don't see advertisers withdrawing from Fox's (or any other network's) actual news and news analysis programs.

We see corporate America assaulting freedom, we see corporate America spreading their corruption ever further and let's be sure to keep in mind that todays very very low quality of journalism is mostly Corporate Americas fault.

Your argument is rejected.

Teal:

rotflmao.gif
 
Being a rascit...

racecard.jpg


Then there's this:

white trash moron is bad for business...


LMMFAO

He plays the race card to falsely accuse Carlson of being racist, then turns around an attacks Carlson with.... you guessed it... a racial slur.

How can anyone take people like this seriously?

.
 
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".

What a whiny little bitch. It's called the free market. (YES. It's a HUGE problem in journalism, what with pop up ads, fake news, and clickbait) but advertisers are for now free to do what they want to do and to die on their sword with a racist or do the right thing and cut all ties with him. 19+ (est) companies cannot be wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom