PDA

View Full Version : Whole-Foods Boycott


Lyle
08-17-2009, 02:53 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/15/767120/-My-letter-to-the-Nashville-Whole-Foods-management

http://www.progressive.org/radio/14aug09.html

http://www.theagitator.com/2009/08/15/whole-foods-2/

JonIrenicus
08-17-2009, 03:45 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/15/767120/-My-letter-to-the-Nashville-Whole-Foods-management

http://www.progressive.org/radio/14aug09.html

http://www.theagitator.com/2009/08/15/whole-foods-2/



That last was the best piece as it relates to the boycotters as it highlights the fantastically thin skin and hatred of anyone who does not see the same solution they do.


CEO does not agree with us? Hurt the company he heads, and if you check some of the comments on those lefty sweat shops, some advocate pressuring the board to remove him.

And for what crime? Disagreeing with liberals, not being completely liberal in his take.


I swear, I despise such whiny little brats who get bent into pretzels over anyone not toeing the liberal line on EVERY area of life. I look upon them as tiny, insecure, angry chihuahua like variants of human beings.

pampl
08-17-2009, 04:38 AM
I swear, I despise such whiny little brats who get bent into pretzels over anyone not toeing the liberal line on EVERY area of life. I look upon them as tiny, insecure, angry chihuahua like variants of human beings.

Do you apply this standard to people who, for example, boycott Sean Penn movies because of his politics?

JonIrenicus
08-17-2009, 06:45 AM
Do you apply this standard to people who, for example, boycott Sean Penn movies because of his politics?

Yes


Sean Penn is in many ways a fool. He also happens to be a fantastic actor. (see performance in Milk)

There is nothing partisan about this attitude, it's only constituents are the slack jawed with brittle minds.

Be it this CEO's position at his company, Penn acting roles, or Clintons performance as president, a perceived transgression in one area is NOT an auto disqualifier for support in others.


The boycotters here are the slack jawed. So, you disagree with the CEOs take on health care, so you want to boycott his entire company... for not believing as you do... and saying so...

O.o

Pretty cut and dry.

Lyle
08-17-2009, 06:56 AM
I couldn't agree more. It's why I won't ever register as a Democrat. The blinding animosity these people have for others can be obscene.

graz
08-17-2009, 10:26 AM
Pretty cut and dry.

There is always a bigger picture:

Whole Foods CEO wants to "nanny state" your diet and choices. His goal is to deflect the blame for ill health on poor food choices. Not that I would deny it as a contributing factor... yet.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/aug/05/whole-foods-boss-junk-food
Solution: eat my overpriced organic goods and I'll work to reduce the premiums I pay for your health insurance.
The Maggie Thatcher quote in the WSJ was also a nice touch if provocation was his goal:

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."

óMargaret Thatcher
And you would like for the slack jawed to simply ask for another serving of the corporate shit sandwich Mackey is dishing out?
The irony is that Whole Foods "team members" currently enjoy relatively good wages and benefits.
Hey, lets all work to reduce that advantage the employees receive now. As CEO I'll start by alienating my left leaning clientele. When our profits drop, I will have no choice but to cut benefits - after all, there is no union to protect workers rights. What possessed me to pen that editorial in the first place? Oy yeah, the health and well being of my customers and employees.
Righteous.

Starwatcher162536
08-17-2009, 01:07 PM
From my perspective, this is a trait that is common across the entire political spectrum. I hope you refuse to register as a Republican for the same reason.

Lyle
08-17-2009, 01:21 PM
Of course, it goes without saying or as Jon wrote it's "pretty cut and dry"... and that's why I'm an Independent.

popcorn_karate
08-17-2009, 02:59 PM
so you hate free markets? is that it?

uncle ebeneezer
08-17-2009, 05:10 PM
Whole-Foods should be boycotted because everything they sell is horribly over-priced, end of story. But I'm torn because it is definitely the place to try to meet hot girls (at least in LA). ;-)

For my $, Trader Joe's is a much better choice for my political conscience.

bjkeefe
08-17-2009, 05:56 PM
Whole-Foods should be boycotted because everything they sell is horribly over-priced, end of story. But I'm torn because it is definitely the place to try to meet hot girls (at least in LA). ;-)

For my $, Trader Joe's is a much better choice for my political conscience.

Did you ever shop at Mrs. Gooch's before the Whole Foods borg swallowed them up?

TwinSwords
08-17-2009, 09:32 PM
That last was the best piece as it relates to the boycotters as it highlights the fantastically thin skin and hatred of anyone who does not see the same solution they do.
You're so incensed by the decision of some customers to withdraw their support from Whole Foods. The bold text could easily apply to you.

Why are you so thin skinned and full of hate for people who disagree with you? For people who are simply exercising their rights of association and speech?



CEO does not agree with us? Hurt the company he heads
LOL! We found conservative compassion! For corporations!

You actually seem to believe that the corporation has a right to the public's money. No one is obliged to spend money at Whole Foods. How much do you spend at Whole Foods? Nothing? Then you're "hurting the company" just as much as these boycotters. Do you hate yourself?



and if you check some of the comments on those lefty sweat shops, some advocate pressuring the board to remove him.
OMG no! Not remove him!!! http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/scared.gif

Actually, that would be the smartest thing. The board should be pissed that this idiot foolishly pissed off his customer base.



I swear, I despise such whiny little brats who get bent into pretzels over anyone not toeing the liberal line on EVERY area of life. I look upon them as tiny, insecure, angry chihuahua like variants of human beings.
Word for word, this could be said about you and your reaction to the boycott.

Word for word. Look in the mirror.

bjkeefe
08-17-2009, 09:34 PM
[...]

Awesome response, Twin.

Thanks for saving me some typing. ;^)

TwinSwords
08-17-2009, 09:38 PM
... the fantastically thin skin and hatred of anyone who does not see the same solution they do.

[...]

I swear, I despise such whiny little brats who get bent into pretzels over anyone not toeing the liberal line on EVERY area of life. I look upon them as tiny, insecure, angry chihuahua like variants of human beings.

I couldn't agree more. ... The blinding animosity these people have for others can be obscene.

The lack of self-awareness is hilarious.

Lyle
08-17-2009, 11:53 PM
Haha... what exactly am I not self-aware about?

AemJeff
08-17-2009, 11:56 PM
Haha... was exactly am I not self-aware about?

If that question could be effectively answered, you wouldn't be Lyle.

bjkeefe
08-18-2009, 12:45 AM
If that question could be effectively answered, you wouldn't be Lyle.

You owe me a new keyboard.

JonIrenicus
08-18-2009, 06:57 PM
You're so incensed by the decision of some customers to withdraw their support from Whole Foods. The bold text could easily apply to you.

Incensed? no, I just think it is stupid. Short of doing something truly malevolent, like voicing support for slavery or something, we ought not take support from companies we like and enjoy products from just because we do not agree with an executives position in a completely different area. It is beyond petty and pathetic and a loser attitude.

Now for some, what he said is almost as bad as backing slavery, having a non liberal position and worse, expressing it openly.

To those all I will say is this, the fact that you are too brittle and broken and tantrum ridden to understand the distinction between the truly malevolent, and a policy disagreement, does not get you off the hook for being called out for being fools. Get you off the hook for being highlighted for exactly how pathetic your stance is.

You want his image and reputation destroyed, you want the man fired because you disagree with his policy descriptions. Who is the baby here?

Thank you, to the honest liberals, to the rest, here is something to suckle on in your furor.

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/baby-bottle.jpg




Why are you so thin skinned and full of hate for people who disagree with you? For people who are simply exercising their rights of association and speech?

You misunderstand, it is not hate. Is it barbed, yes, counter productively acidic? probably. But in my view, deserved. Rights to freedom of associations cut more than one way, much like our right to freedom of speech.

You can choose to associate/disassociate with whomever you wish, just as you are free to voice whatever opinion you wish and in the latter case not be jailed for it.

What you are NOT free from is criticism for your choices and words. If that is your goal, go back to suckling on that bottle. It is the same misconception Bill Maher had over his incident with freedom of speech. He was perfectly free to say whatever he wished, what he was NOT free from was the reaction.

Freedom of speech =/= freedom of consequence

But it cuts both ways, neither were the people clamoring to get him fired. Now in that case I thought the the comment Bill got in trouble for was idiotic, as were the people clamoring for his removal, and I called them out on it, they were still free to take their actions, but not free from being attacked for their attacks.

LOL! We found conservative compassion! For corporations!

You actually seem to believe that the corporation has a right to the public's money. No one is obliged to spend money at Whole Foods. How much do you spend at Whole Foods? Nothing? Then you're "hurting the company" just as much as these boycotters. Do you hate yourself?


I have compassion for the consequences of harming a corporation, yes, the corporation itself may be an amoral entity in form seeking to earn more and more money, but for all that selfish motivation, the results produced in jobs and benefits to society are often far greater than any harm.

For the rest of that spittle, you are seeing the world through tinted glasses. Spend your money where you wish. Boycott if you wish, but don't expect immunity from bashing your reaction to his reaction. This is the expectation of a child.



OMG no! Not remove him!!! http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/scared.gif

Actually, that would be the smartest thing. The board should be pissed that this idiot foolishly pissed off his customer base.



On this you may be right, much like the case with Bill Maher (advertising issues related to pressure against him from his comments), it is in the realm of possibility that the harm caused from a smaller, frothing portion of the whole foods customer base would call for a need to replace him.

I hope that does not happen, but what can you do if a chunk of your customer base it as deranged as a some posters are about silencing his opinions.


Word for word, this could be said about you and your reaction to the boycott.

Word for word. Look in the mirror.

Yes, it could, the difference is that my descriptions are better applied to those I attack than myself.

An assertion, yes, but take a poll of centrists and I suspect you would find them agreeing.

claymisher
08-18-2009, 07:17 PM
If that question could be effectively answered, you wouldn't be Lyle.

Come on guys, be nice. Don't pick on the developmentally disabled. He's doing the best he can.

TwinSwords
08-18-2009, 08:27 PM
Rights to freedom of associations cut more than one way, much like our right to freedom of speech.

You can choose to associate/disassociate with whomever you wish, just as you are free to voice whatever opinion you wish and in the latter case not be jailed for it.
Okay, good. That's the CEO of Whole Foods. He voiced his opinion, and he was not jailed for it. So far, so good.


What you are NOT free from is criticism for your choices and words.
Okay. Excellent. This covers the boycotters. These are the people who are free to issue criticism for the CEO's choices and words.

I guess we agree after all!

bjkeefe
08-18-2009, 09:01 PM
To those all I will say is this, the fact that you are too brittle and broken and tantrum ridden ...

Never fails to amaze me how you portray people you don't agree with as so unhinged, yet you're so hysterical that you use terminology like:

You want his image and reputation destroyed, ...

"Destroyed." Man, if I had a nickel for every time I heard a wingnut misuse that word ...

Look, JonI, just relax. Mackey made a public statement many of his customers didn't like, and this boycott is the one way they have of getting his attention to let him know that they're unhappy with his stance. Bee Eff Dee.

If he cares more about keeping his customers, maybe he'll think twice the next time about trying to use his clout to influence the political process. "Free speech" means the government can't fine you or throw you in jail for having your say. It does not mean that you get to claim immunity from all consequences, particularly those of the (free) marketplace.

bjkeefe
08-18-2009, 10:59 PM
Yglesias (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/08/on-boycotting-whole-foods.php) (via SKS/Wonkette (http://wonkette.com/410542/boycott-whole-foods-or-dont)) and Kleiman (http://www.samefacts.com/archives/health_care_/2009/08/my_last_dollar_at_whole_foods.php) (via Yglesias) weigh in.

Money line from Kleiman:

... with the advice of Lanny Davis (who will never sell out because he's always for rent) ...

avatar299
08-19-2009, 08:49 AM
it's scary that liberals are in power. How is boycotting this company a good idea. The chances that mackey will be hurt are minuscule. Are the daily kos democrats retarded?

Do they know how much good press Whole Foods and Safeway have gotten during this public debate. Millions of people didn't know Whole foods had a good approach to healhcare. Now they do. They are the poster boy of corporate responsibility right now and considering the millions of dollars companies spend to create a good public image, the fact that they did it off a WSJ article is hysterical. Mackey won't lose his job, he secured it.

The only people who will be hurt by this are the poor unskilled workers employed there. The workers with great health beefits, the workers with great pay. They will lose their jobs if that particular store they are working at is hit "hard" by this campaign that we have seen no evidence of even existing.

i guarantee they will post a profit this fiscal year, as they should. A company should lose money because they hurt consumers or are inefficient, not because one person has an opinion.

AemJeff
08-19-2009, 09:58 AM
it's scary that liberals are in power. How is boycotting this company a good idea. The chances that mackey will be hurt are minuscule. Are the daily kos democrats retarded?

Do they know how much good press Whole Foods and Safeway have gotten during this public debate. Millions of people didn't know Whole foods had a good approach to healhcare. Now they do. They are the poster boy of corporate responsibility right now and considering the millions of dollars companies spend to create a good public image, the fact that they did it off a WSJ article is hysterical. Mackey won't lose his job, he secured it.

The only people who will be hurt by this are the poor unskilled workers employed there. The workers with great health beefits, the workers with great pay. They will lose their jobs if that particular store they are working at is hit "hard" by this campaign that we have seen no evidence of even existing.

i guarantee they will post a profit this fiscal year, as they should. A company should lose money because they hurt consumers or are inefficient, not because one person has an opinion.

Yeah, we're safe from liberals like Brent Bozell calling for boycotts based on speech issues during Republican administrations.

Are you kidding?

graz
08-19-2009, 10:00 AM
...Do they know how much good press Whole Foods and Safeway have gotten during this public debate. Millions of people didn't know Whole foods had a good approach to healhcare. Now they do. They are the poster boy of corporate responsibility right now and considering the millions of dollars companies spend to create a good public image, the fact that they did it off a WSJ article is hysterical. Mackey won't lose his job, he secured it.

The only people who will be hurt by this are the poor unskilled workers employed there. The workers with great health beefits, the workers with great pay. They will lose their jobs if that particular store they are working at is hit "hard" by this campaign that we have seen no evidence of even existing.

What is the connection to Safeway? Which is a union shop anyway, unlike Whole Foods. A percentage of WF employees are hired as part-timers so as to avoid offering them benefits. By the way, the "great pay" and benefits you tout are just above a living wage in the costly cities they operate in.

Before claiming a public relations victory, you might acknowledge that more liberal dollars will be lost than supportive libertarian/right dollars found. Radley Balko may spend a bit more of his blogging riches, but this controversy will likely highlight how overpriced the merchandise is.

Lyle
08-19-2009, 10:49 AM
There's nothing to suggest the boycott will actually work or that the arithmetic you just laid out calculates. It'll be interesting to see how the boycott unfolds.

Personally, I think it is asinine and just makes progressives look unintelligent and myopic.

popcorn_karate
08-19-2009, 02:11 PM
why do you oppose people making free choices in the market place?

do you not like a) free choices or B) free markets, or c) both?

lyle?

stephanie
08-19-2009, 06:08 PM
As a personal matter, I think the boycott is silly. Outside certain limits, I neither care if a CEO disagrees with me on a political issue or comments about such an issue publicly. However, some of the comments being made here are completely over-the-top or unfair. For example:

it's scary that liberals are in power.

How is this a "liberal" thing? As others have pointed out, it's a common sort of tactic from people on the right, too. In fact, that's one reason I think this is silly and slightly annoying.

How is boycotting this company a good idea.

From the perspective of people inclined to boycott, how is it not? Presumably if you choose to participate in the boycott, the value of expressing your reaction to Mackey's opinion piece by refusing to patronize his business is more significant to you than whatever you perceive the tradeoff to be. That you or I would come to a different choice here does not mean that those who weigh the value and tradeoffs differently aren't making the right choice for them.

The chances that mackey will be hurt are minuscule. Are the daily kos democrats retarded?

First, why presume that the people participating in the boycott only find it valuable if he will be injured? Maybe they also want to express their views (the first amendment and all) and this is a way to do it? Second, the same could be said for the likelihood of success of any consumer boycott, yet some are successful on some level.

The only people who will be hurt by this are the poor unskilled workers employed there.

Since you just explained why the boycott was doomed to failure, this makes no sense. If WF won't be hurt (and I don't expect it to be by this), its workers, however skilled or unskilled, won't be either. More significantly, the argument fails even if the boycott stood a chance of success, since presumably if WF does relatively worse in the market other food sellers will do better, people needing to eat and all. So they hire more workers and WFs has less. Why? Because of people expressing their consumer preferences. Capitalism. The invisible hand. It's the American way, isn't it?

Lyle
08-20-2009, 01:52 AM
why do you oppose people making free choices in the market place?

do you not like a) free choices or B) free markets, or c) both?

lyle?

What does disagreeing with a boycott or thinking it unintelligent have to do with supporting or not supporting free choices or free markets?

Did I say that they can't boycott and should shop at Wal-mart instead? No, no I didn't.

bjkeefe
08-20-2009, 02:05 AM
The best part of this whole non-issue is going to be when the wingnuts start shopping at Whole Foods out of their usual myopic vision of tribal loyalty.

Remember when conservatives in this country used to at least have enough self-confidence to laugh at liberals for boycotting things? Like, say, tuna canners until they stopped killing dolphins? Now the wingnuts are so wound up with looking for mud to sling and reasons to be fauxtraged that they're beside themselves at the notion that a few liberals might boycott the erstwhile epitome of everything they loved to hate about "the elitist liberal lifestyle."

Totally hilarious.

Lyle
08-20-2009, 03:19 AM
The best part of this whole non-issue is going to be when the wingnuts start shopping at Whole Foods out of their usual myopic vision of tribal loyalty.

Wait, isn't the boycott itself about staying loyal to the tribe? So the hard right is just as myopic as the hard left, is that what you're saying?

bjkeefe
08-20-2009, 03:24 AM
Wait, isn't the boycott itself about staying loyal to the tribe? So the hard right is just as myopic as the hard left, is that what you're saying?

Please show me some evidence that this boycott is anything remotely approaching universal on the left before you try to play this false equivalence card.

Lyle
08-20-2009, 03:35 AM
I wrote the hard left. That's meant not to describe the entirety of the Left. However, to be more specific about who we are talking about it would be anyone on the left who supports the boycott.

Your saying they're just as tribal and myopic as those on the right who will start shopping a WF just to spite said boycott?

bjkeefe
08-20-2009, 03:59 AM
I wrote the hard left. That's meant not to describe the entirety of the Left. However, to be more specific about who we are talking about it would be anyone on the left who supports the boycott.

Again, show me some evidence that there is anything approaching universality on the "hard left," if you insist on the distinction. And no, you don't get to define "hard left" as "anyone who supports the boycott."

Your saying they're just as tribal and myopic as those on the right who will start shopping a WF just to spite said boycott?

No, Mr. Obtuseness. That's not what I'm saying at all. That's what you're (note spelling) saying.

Lyle
08-20-2009, 04:16 AM
Again, show me some evidence that there is anything approaching universality on the "hard left," if you insist on the distinction. And no, you don't get to define "hard left" as "anyone who supports the boycott."

I didn't define the "hard left" as anyone who supports the boycott. I said to be more specific (discarding the term hard left) we're talking about those on the left who are boycotting WF. They don't fall under any name, they just are who they are.

No, Mr. Obtuseness. That's not what I'm saying at all. That's what you're (note spelling) saying.

Actually, that's what you said by inference.

bjkeefe
08-20-2009, 11:58 AM
Actually, that's what you said by inference.

Actually, I did not. Actually, this is what you have been trying to infer, and what I keep pointing out that you have no basis for saying.

You've gone into full Lial mode on this -- on what started as a purely sardonic remark -- so I'm going to drop it.

Lyle
08-20-2009, 12:20 PM
It's just like the time when you labeled President Obama a homophobe. Haha. Same deal here.

bjkeefe
08-20-2009, 12:48 PM
It's just like the time when you labeled President Obama a homophobe. Haha. Same deal here.

No. If you're honest (hard for you, I know) you'll recall that it was you who labeled him a homophobe, via another false equivalence.

Lyle
08-20-2009, 01:45 PM
Could you be anymore dishonest? Wonderment called you out on it first, remember? He knows what you said, we all know. We know you didn't mean it, but you said it out of your eagerness to call anyone not supporting the California proposition a bigot.

Who are you kidding keefe? Who are you kidding?

bjkeefe
08-20-2009, 02:58 PM
Could you be anymore dishonest? Wonderment called you out on it first, remember?

Because Wonderment also called Obama a homophobe does not mean I called Obama a homophobe. This is what you're claiming, and you're wrong about that. So, I am not being dishonest.

If you want to call me "dishonest," you'll have to link to the place where I said what you are now claiming I said.

Happy hunting.

Lyle
08-20-2009, 06:24 PM
How about you have some integrity and just admit you wrote something kind of stupid?

You ask people to own up to their "mistakes" all the time keefe. So why don't you go ahead and finally own up to yours. Stop embarrassing yourself.

TwinSwords
08-20-2009, 06:52 PM
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/4189/childrenatplay.jpg

bjkeefe
08-21-2009, 02:02 PM
"But, But, John Mackey Is Nice To Bunny Rabbits. (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/24164.html)"

Lyle
08-23-2009, 01:00 AM
Blogginghead Matt Welch at Reason comments:

http://reason.com/blog/show/135584.html

bjkeefe
08-23-2009, 01:05 AM
Blogginghead Matt Welch at Reason comments:

http://reason.com/blog/show/135584.html

Heh. Always read the new comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=126374#post126374) before posting.

Lyle
08-23-2009, 02:13 AM
That is a comment from another thread, and not even the same comment. So what are you talking about?

bjkeefe
08-23-2009, 02:16 AM
That is a comment from another thread, and not even the same comment. So what are you talking about?

Refers to the same article that you linked to.

Lyle
08-23-2009, 05:58 AM
No kidding.

bjkeefe
08-23-2009, 04:23 PM
No kidding.

Hey, you asked, Mr. Obstuseness.

bjkeefe
08-25-2009, 12:45 AM
Number of advertisers now known to have withdrawn all support from Glenn Beck's show on Fox: 33.

Bonus: UPS just announced it was pulling all of its advertising from Fox News altogether. BROWNSHIRTS!!!1!

Not too late to add your voice to Color of Change (http://www.colorofchange.org/beck/)'s petition.

(dKos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/24/771670/-UPS-drops-ALL-Fox-advertising,-Not-Just-Glenn-Beck!!-Updated-with-email-to-UPS) via Balloon Juice (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=25922http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=25922http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=25922))

bjkeefe
08-25-2009, 02:21 AM
Number of advertisers now known to have withdrawn all support from Glenn Beck's show on Fox: 33.

New number: 36. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker/verizon-lowes-johnson-joh_b_267302.html)

JonIrenicus
08-25-2009, 07:11 AM
Number of advertisers now known to have withdrawn all support from Glenn Beck's show on Fox: 33.

Bonus: UPS just announced it was pulling all of its advertising from Fox News altogether. BROWNSHIRTS!!!1!

Not too late to add your voice to Color of Change (http://www.colorofchange.org/beck/)'s petition.

(dKos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/24/771670/-UPS-drops-ALL-Fox-advertising,-Not-Just-Glenn-Beck!!-Updated-with-email-to-UPS) via Balloon Juice (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=25922http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=25922http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=25922))


I am not a fan of Beck, in fact I think he is a complete fake as I have said here before, but to get him off the air like this just seems sleazy.

I guess boycotts in general just rub me the wrong way. Only one I can think of off the top of my head that seemed right was Kings bus boycott.

I did not like it when it was done to Bill Mahers advertisers, and I don't like it here. It basically says, we do not approve of this message, and will inflict harm on anyone who props that message up, however indirectly or directly.

It does not defeat the message on an open field, it is a knife to the throat in darkest night. And therein lies the sleaze. Glenn Beck is either a fraud or a fool. But to many he is enjoyable to watch. Who are we to tell them they are not allowed to watch him?


Before the thoughtless readers of this protest that is not what they are doing, I agree with you, you are not preventing them from watching him, directly. But your actions are aimed at getting him off the air by poisoning and weakening his supports.

The result is the same, and just because you use a proxy to deny them their crazy man does not transform your actions into something noble. YOU do not think he is fit to be on the air, and simply not tuning in yourself is not enough, no one else should be allowed to tune in either.

I never have, and never will sympathize with this tactic. Bill Maher had good ratings till the end. He got fired because some advertisers pulled out due to boycott pressures. I loved his PI show, but I was denied the ability to watch it because of the actions of others who thought his ideas and show not fit for the air.

That is why I have such an innate hostility to boycotts. And it does not matter whether I support the assaulted or not, I do not like the idea of things I like being turned on or off at the whim of others. You don't like something, then don't consume it, but why go out of your way to stop those who DO like it from having the opportunity of getting what they like?

bjkeefe
08-25-2009, 01:54 PM
I am not a fan of Beck, in fact I think he is a complete fake as I have said here before, but to get him off the air like this just seems sleazy.

[...]

That is why I have such an innate hostility to boycotts. And it does not matter whether I support the assaulted or not, I do not like the idea of things I like being turned on or off at the whim of others. You don't like something, then don't consume it, but why go out of your way to stop those who DO like it from having the opportunity of getting what they like?

First, calm down. Beck is not going to be taken off the air by Fox, no matter how many companies Color of Change manages to encourage to withdraw their advertising support from him. A show like Beck's, sadly, will always draw an audience, and where there's an audience, you'll always be able to sell advertising.

To your larger points: I don't at all agree with your view. There are a myriad of things that are on the air that many people dislike, where choosing not to watch is deemed a sufficient reaction. And then there are those few shows that strike people as truly reprehensible, and I think it's good that people speak up about them. This is pushing to maintain societal standards, nothing more. The sufficiently angered are letting the guy on stage with the megaphone, and the people paying for the stage and megaphone, know that a line has been crossed. This is no different from encouraging those around you to shun (or otherwise sanction) someone on an individual level who spews out objectionable speech; the only difference is that in the case of a TV show, the only way to get noticed is to make it about the only thing companies care about: money.

More importantly, if you remove this route from people, then the only other thing left to them is to attempt to persuade the government to intervene on their behalf, and I'm pretty sure you don't want to go there any more than I do. You want the bluenoses at Focus On The Family and their lapdogs at the FCC making decisions about what's appropriate, or would you rather have the consumers badgering sponsors? To me, the latter seems a far more democratic and free market process.

You're never going to get people to agree that all they should ever do is change the channel in every single case, especially when it is accepted wisdom in the cable TV "news" business that outrageousness sells.

Nor, do I think, should we ever wish for that. There does come a point where what someone is saying is simply not acceptable in polite society and it calls for a more vigorous response than simply ignoring him. Redrawing boundaries is how societies make progress, herky-jerky though it might be.

claymisher
08-25-2009, 04:30 PM
First, calm down. Beck is not going to be taken off the air by Fox, no matter how many companies Color of Change manages to encourage to withdraw their advertising support from him. A show like Beck's, sadly, will always draw an audience, and where there's an audience, you'll always be able to sell advertising.

To your larger points: I don't at all agree with your view. There are a myriad of things that are on the air that many people dislike, where choosing not to watch is deemed a sufficient reaction. And then there are those few shows that strike people as truly reprehensible, and I think it's good that people speak up about them. This is pushing to maintain societal standards, nothing more. The sufficiently angered are letting the guy on stage with the megaphone, and the people paying for the stage and megaphone, know that a line has been crossed. This is no different from encouraging those around you to shun (or otherwise sanction) someone on an individual level who spews out objectionable speech; the only difference is that in the case of a TV show, the only way to get noticed is to make it about the only thing companies care about: money.

More importantly, if you remove this route from people, then the only other thing left to them is to attempt to persuade the government to intervene on their behalf, and I'm pretty sure you don't want to go there any more than I do. You want the bluenoses at Focus On The Family and their lapdogs at the FCC making decisions about what's appropriate, or would you rather have the consumers badgering sponsors? To me, the latter seems a far more democratic and free market process.

You're never going to get people to agree that all they should ever do is change the channel in every single case, especially when it is accepted wisdom in the cable TV "news" business that outrageousness sells.

Nor, do I think, should we ever wish for that. There does come a point where what someone is saying is simply not acceptable in polite society and it calls for a more vigorous response than simply ignoring him. Redrawing boundaries is how societies make progress, herky-jerky though it might be.

I'm not so sure. Fox News ain't a charity. When you lose all your big advertisers your ad rates go down, and there goes the profit. I think Beck is doomed.

bjkeefe
08-25-2009, 05:38 PM
I'm not so sure. Fox News ain't a charity. When you lose all your big advertisers your ad rates go down, and there goes the profit. I think Beck is doomed.

Quit trying to get my hopes up. I guarantee you that Beck is not going to lose his audience, and therefore, his ad rates will not diminish, at least not appreciably. They'll always be able to find companies who don't care what libtards think about them to sponsor him, and worse comes to worst, they will find a way to channel wingnut welfare money through shell companies to keep him on the air.