Rosie, Left Wing Partisan, Loses Bully Pulpit!

ponderingturtle said:
And the vocal minority that does that the most does it with letters to the FCC and trying to get the FCC into non broadcast media, not so much with boycotts.

I just don't know how else a consumer is supposted to express their displeasure dirrectly to a company.
Click to expand...

  1. In a word, ratings.
  2. Consumers should do whatever they believe is correct according to their conscious.
  3. Consumers typically vote with their dollars.
  4. My TV comes with an on off button. If I don't like a show I can choose not to watch the show.
  5. If enough people stop patronizing a show then changes will be made or the show will be dropped.
  6. That is, I believe, the best response for the market to dictate what should and should not be on TV or the radio.
  7. As it is, it is possible for a popular show to be canceled simply because a few people threaten to use intimidation by race baiting, fear, etc to cause financial harm to companies that advertise on a given show.
  8. In this way a vocal minority can dictate whether a particular show is available to be seen by others simply by playing to people's fears and emotions.
  9. By and large I don't like that. It is mob mentality and often it is not the result of critical thinking.
 
RandFan said:
It's a fair point. However, if a popular voice could be silenced through threat and intimidation would you be fine with that?
Click to expand...

Threat and intimidation through lawful actions, or through illegal actions?

I'm fine with "if you do that I won't do business with you and I'll ask others to do the same".
I'm not fine with "if you do that I'll firebomb your home".

Both are threats and intimidation, one is acceptable and the other isn't.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Wait, so telling people that they should not buy from you is now a threat and intimidation?
Click to expand...
Yes, of course, if I can effectively use propaganda, lies, distortions and play to the emotions and fears of the populace then I can effectively scare an advertiser to pulling add revenue from a show. The sad part is that advertisers will often act just on the threat. Never mind that had they chose to continue with their funding the outcry would have failed.

Case in point: A local radio host in California, Larry Elder, was targeted by a group that didn't like what he had to say. Larry is black and he is also Libertarian. Larry is by all measure a very decent and intelectually honest person. His critics tried to silence him through intimidation of his advertisers. It nearly worked. Advertisers started to leave the show. However the radio station decided that it wasn't going to be intimidated to silence Larry especially since those calling for Larry's removal were telling lies and spreading falsehoods about Larry. The radio station had a backbone and took a loss for awhile until the critics stopped.

What is the capitalistic way of expressing displeasure in the marketplace then?
Click to expand...
It's real simple turtle, TV's and Radios come with an off switch and a channel selector. My advice? Turn the show off or change channels. What is so hard to understand about that?

So are you talking about Imus or Stern?
Click to expand...
Look at the top of your screen. Do you see the thread title? Does it include the name Imus? Does it include the name Stern? Whose name does it include?

The FCC seemed to be much more effective at threats and intimidation than a few people calling for boycotts.
Click to expand...
The FCC are aholes that respond to the knee jerk reactions of the public.
 
brodski said:
I'm fine with "if you do that I won't do business with you and I'll ask others to do the same".
Click to expand...
How about, "I'll play to people's prejudices, fears and emotions to get them to see you in a negative light regardless of whether it is true or not"?

Both are threats and intimidation, one is acceptable and the other isn't.
Click to expand...
No argument. Calls for boycotts are a protected form of speech. I've said that many times on this forum. No one is arguing otherwise. I'm appealing to individuals to use critical thinking and avoid knee jerk mob mentality.
 
Upchurch said:
I know next to nothing about the whole situation and I care about it even less than that. What I was reacting to was this line from the OP:

It seems to me that Trump pressuring Walters to remove O'Donnel for the view is at least analogous, if not worse from a circumventing market forces perspective, to Sharpton boycotting advertisers to drop Imus.

I don't know if Trump did pressure Walters or how he would have done so, but that is what I took away from the OP.
Click to expand...
I don't know either. I guess Trump was using his influence and I would be against that. However Trump didn't call for boycotts of the view or try to go after the advertisers in an attempt to silence Rosie. Had he done that I would have been very much agaisnt that.

I don't like it when a few people like Sharpton or Trump being able to influence what the people can see simply because they have some unelectd power and many people are, at times, incapable of critical thinking or skepticism.

Mr. Smith goes to Washington would be a good example.
 
mijopaalmc said:
You're right I did confuse you with BPSCG. I apologize.
Click to expand...
I, OTOH, have no ethical problem with boycotts. If it is legal, ethical, and a constitutionally protected right for me to refuse to buy a product because I don't like who it sponsors, and it is legal, ethical, and a constitutionally protected right for me to associate with whomever I wish, what is the process by which it becomes illegal, unethical, or unconstitutional for me to refuse to buy a product because I don't like who it sponsors, in association with a friend? Two friends? Two hundred friends? Two hundred thousand friends?

Mind you, I think a boycott can be a reflection of collective ignorance and stupidity, and maybe that's what RandFan objects to. But ignorance and stupidity aren't unethical, illegal, or unconstitutional, and won't be until I take over.
 
BPSCG said:
I, OTOH, have no ethical problem with boycotts. If it is legal, ethical, and a constitutionally protected right for me to refuse to buy a product because I don't like who it sponsors, and it is legal, ethical, and a constitutionally protected right for me to associate with whomever I wish, what is the process by which it becomes illegal, unethical, or unconstitutional for me to refuse to buy a product because I don't like who it sponsors, in association with a friend? Two friends? Two hundred friends? Two hundred thousand friends?

Mind you, I think a boycott can be a reflection of collective ignorance and stupidity, and maybe that's what RandFan objects to. But ignorance and stupidity aren't unethical, illegal, or unconstitutional, and won't be until I take over.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine) :) I can't argue with that.
 
BPSCG said:
I, OTOH, have no ethical problem with boycotts. If it is legal, ethical, and a constitutionally protected right for me to refuse to buy a product because I don't like who it sponsors, and it is legal, ethical, and a constitutionally protected right for me to associate with whomever I wish, what is the process by which it becomes illegal, unethical, or unconstitutional for me to refuse to buy a product because I don't like who it sponsors, in association with a friend? Two friends? Two hundred friends? Two hundred thousand friends?

Mind you, I think a boycott can be a reflection of collective ignorance and stupidity, and maybe that's what RandFan objects to. But ignorance and stupidity aren't unethical, illegal, or unconstitutional, and won't be until I take over.
Click to expand...

Given that boycotts often (at least in your formulation) can be expressions of "collective ignorance and stupidity", are there ever times when boycotts can be thoughtfully and intelligently planned? Are such boycotts a thing of the past?
 
RandFan said:
  1. In a word, ratings.
  2. Consumers should do whatever they believe is correct according to their conscious.
  3. Consumers typically vote with their dollars.
Click to expand...


  1. That is what a boycott is. Mass voting with their dollars

    [*]My TV comes with an on off button. If I don't like a show I can choose not to watch the show.
    [*]If enough people stop patronizing a show then changes will be made or the show will be dropped.
    Click to expand...

    Or the network decided that the show does not represent what the network wants to be viewed as.
 
BPSCG said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

That's sort of what I was trying to get at with my second question:

mijopaalmc said:
Are such boycotts a thing of the past?
Click to expand...

The point is that people who oppose boycotts now seem only to support those boycotts that were stunning successes in the past. In a way, they only seem to consider the grievances that people suffered in this country in the past worth of such moral outrage. Why apparently aren't there any current issues that deserve the same amount of attention as bus segregation did in the mid-1950's?
 
RandFan said:
It's real simple turtle, TV's and Radios come with an off switch and a channel selector. My advice? Turn the show off or change channels. What is so hard to understand about that?
Click to expand...

It is the weakest possible way to show disaproval of a topic.
 
BPSCG said:
I, OTOH, have no ethical problem with boycotts. If it is legal, ethical, and a constitutionally protected right for me to refuse to buy a product because I don't like who it sponsors, and it is legal, ethical, and a constitutionally protected right for me to associate with whomever I wish, what is the process by which it becomes illegal, unethical, or unconstitutional for me to refuse to buy a product because I don't like who it sponsors, in association with a friend? Two friends? Two hundred friends? Two hundred thousand friends?

Mind you, I think a boycott can be a reflection of collective ignorance and stupidity, and maybe that's what RandFan objects to. But ignorance and stupidity aren't unethical, illegal, or unconstitutional, and won't be until I take over.
Click to expand...

There is something wrong with the world I am agreeing with you
 
mijopaalmc said:
The point is that people who oppose boycotts now seem only to support those boycotts that were stunning successes in the past. In a way, they only seem to consider the grievances that people suffered in this country in the past worth of such moral outrage. Why apparently aren't there any current issues that deserve the same amount of attention as bus segregation did in the mid-1950's?
Click to expand...
Because we've progressed as a society, maybe? Because we don't have issues where the lines between the right and the wrong are as stark as they were when blacks couldn't go to the same schools as whites, sit on the same row of a bus as whites, register to vote without harrassment, drink out of the same water fountain, sit at the same lunch counter, shop in the same stores. There is no issue today that both pricks the conscience of the nation and speaks to the essential justice of our society the way the post WW II civil rights issues did.
 
A few thoughts on this:
Rosie claims she wasn't pushed out and there have been several credible reports that she wasn't. The View ratings were up substantially as a result of Rosie's presence and I don't think the network was anxious to change that.

I quibble a bit with calling Rosie a left wing partisan. She has many views that are leftwing and she expresses them. But is she a partisan in the sense that Limbaugh is or Carville is? Certainly not in the sense that her arguments and thoughts are constrained to only repeat party rhetoric with the intent of advancing a particular political party. So using the word partisan in the way I use the word, I would not see Rosie as a partisan.

I have absolutely no doubt that if a Democratic administration had done what Bushco did with regard to the firing of the US Attorneys Limbaugh would have been relentlessly critical of the administration. Instead when the administration was Republican he just hopped on the Party bandwagon and pushed out the routine Party spin on the issue. I don't think Rosie would be likely to engage is such extreme partisan behavior.
 
BPSCG said:
There is no issue today that both pricks the conscience of the nation and speaks to the essential justice of our society the way the post WW II civil rights issues did.
Click to expand...

Except for the whole "stay in the closet, homos" thing.
 
RandFan said:
It looks like a simple salary dispute. But Trump did predict over and over that she would be gone shortly. If I were Rosie I would have taken ABC's deal just to shut up Trump.
Click to expand...

I think she left because she didn't like ABC shutting down her 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. She's gonna come out as a total conspiracy nut.
 
Cain said:
Rosie is definitely a left-wing icon. College students from all around the country purposely skip their morning classes just in order to tune into "The View" and deconstruct her playful Marxist message.
Click to expand...

Evidence? Not that Rosie might be a Marxist but that college students skip class to watch "The View". It's 2007 and it's called Tivo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom