Didn’t you (several posters in this thread) just say that Sears and Fedx have both sponsored this show for some time? Didn’t you also point out that this show is Polically Incorrect, and always has been?
How do you then justify saying Sears and Fedx are cowards if they have supported a show that is, and has been, Politically Incorrect, and has surely aired some controvercial stuff before. What? Never? C’mon, there must have been one or two “unpopular” ideas.
Maybe Maher and his guest could have picked a better time to 1) Praise the terrorists by giving them sime kind of credit for being not cowards and 2) Critisize the Military. Maybe. If I were Fedx I’d be spending my advertizing dollar elsewhere.
Also, I would not be surprised to see them return since he has tried to apologize.
So then Robb, you would have no problem, in principle, with the Hollywood blacklist? Or blacklists in general? Hey, just private entities making decisions about who they want to work with, right?
But aside from that…
You are misconstruing my position. Nowhere have I said that FedEx did not have a right to withdraw their advertising. (Go back and read my posts.) Clearly they had the right.
My argument is that they acted irresponsibly and out of cowardice.
In utilizing the airwaves, they are making use of a limited, publicly-licensed resource. They accept the benefits, and I think that with the use of that public resource come some responsibilities as well. Of course, I realize that the concept of civic duty may be anathema to those schooled in Ayn Randian selfishness, but there it is.
So in my view, it was a gutless decision by FedEx which violates the principles of free speech. If they wanted to distance themselves from Maher’s statement, they could have stood up and said, “Hey, we think Bill was wrong, but we’re not afraid to have the debate aired.” You’re right in saying that they were not legally obligated to choose that path. I say that moral obligation may exceed legal duty.
There are legalities and then there are principles, I suppose. Whether FedEx is a government entity or not, they do have it within their power to suppress speech. They abused that power.
“But wait!” you say. “They didn’t stop Maher from speaking!” No, but they planted a seed of doubt. Will he speak freely in the future, or will every word be weighed and balanced against the political views of corporate boards?
this is a strawman, isn’t it? Do I get extra points for playing the label game?
spoke-, I believe that I understand your agrument. I beleive that you best sum it up here:
I read this to mean that a commercial advertiser is limited in its method of dissenting from speech it disagrees with.
Where we seem to disagree, is that I beleive it is perfectly acceptable for a commercial advertiser to completely sever their relationship with disagreeable speech.
Free speech doesn’t mean that you must pay for speech you don’t like. Its that simple.
NO. They haven’t stopped him from speaking. No one is suppressing his speech.
You seem to be forgetting that his show appears on commercial television. It has ratings. Ratings decide whether shows will be carried. Ratings determine advertising rates. People who own TV networks like to get paid. People who have TV shows like to get paid. One of those ugly realities of modern life is that Maher very likely already caters his speech to what works for his audience and advertisers. If he speaks in a way they dislike, what obligation, of any sort, requires them to listen to Maher anymore?
How UnAmerican could it be to force someone, anyone, to subsidize speech they disagree with?
Ulitmately, you are suggesting that FedEx has smoe obligation, in any fashion, ot subsidize with their money and their reputation speech with which they disagree. This isn’t what America is about.
It is not cowardice to separate yourself from speech you disagree with. It is not cowardice to stop paying for speech you disagree with, even if that means such speech won’t happen again in the future. spoke-, read that last line again. Not subsidizing speech is a valid way of letting it die out. As I read your arguments, you suggest that commercial advertisers must pay for speech they disagree with. Under theory, if they want that speech to never be repeated, and they take the passive step of not paying for it, they are cowards. What animals would they need to be, in your system, if they actually took an active part in suppressing speech?
spoke-, do you think that FedEx is obligated (in whatever definition of that word you wish) to pay for speech that they disagree with?
Calling these acts cowardly is just a throwback to a time when a peasant would stab a knight “cowardly” in the back. Cowardly is a word that the “strong” use to make the weak foolhardy because the “strong” know that they will win otherwise. These terrorists want to fight the US, and they are doing it in the way that they can.
The terrorists were cowards, and my reasoning is thus:
Anybody can and will give their life for a cause that they ardently believe in, even if it’s just a parent trying to protect or rescue their child.
These terrorists didn’t see their physical death as the end of their life, but merely the beginning of life everlasting. With this kind of belief, physical death means little. As such, they had to summon very little physical courage, and their method of attack ensured that they endured very little physical pain. They were dead before they knew what hit them.
But: these terrorists plotted and trained in relative physical comfort to attack unwitting targets.
Civilian targets. Even the attack upon the Pentagon I see as a civilian target, because even though it is a military installation, it is not a combat environment in the least. It is purely administrative in function. It really wasn’t that much different from attacking two office towers full of civilians in business attire going about their daily rounds of commerce.
If they truly see themseolves as “warriors of Allah”, then let them stand up and fight other warriors. Let them declare their intentions openly, and then wage a guerilla war against warriors, professional soldiers, similarly trained to fight.
Then they will be brave advesaries, worthy of a modicum of human respect.
As to Mr. Maher:
I don’t always agre with Bill Maher, but the man is intelligent and poses tough questions without simple, sound bite answers. He confronts issues, even touchy ones, and doesn’t back down.
I, personally, repsect that as intellectual courage, and moral courage as well. If his show gets yanked because of this contreversy, then someone hasn’t bothered to look at the title of his show.
If FedEx is pulling advertising just because of heated phone calls and angry letters, then they are the true cowards of this little sideshow tragedy.
They undertook to sponsor a show called Politically Incorrect, the whole point of which is to freely air potentially unpopular ideas. They did not undertake to sponsor Bill Maher as a company spokesman. He does not walk on stage wearing a FedEx cap. Unless they agree with everything ever said on P.I., they’ve been underwriting speech with which they did not agree all along.
So why didn’t they pull their advertising before now?
They pulled their advertising not because they disagreed with Maher but because they didn’t have the courage to deal with irate viewers. Cowardice is the only word for it.
To answer your question, I think that someone who purports to sponsor a forum for the exchange of ideas has the obligation not to withdraw support on short notice when they disagree with some of the ideas being espoused. Otherwise, they are using the power of the purse to inhibit the exchange of ideas. Do they have the right to do this? Yes, and I have the right to call them reprehensible cowards for it.
They pulled the advertising purportedly on grounds of patriotism. I don’t think I’m the only one who sees the irony in suppressing free speech in the name of Americanism. (And yes, a private entity is as capable as the government of suppressing free speech.)
I’ve already addressed your argument that they didn’t suppress Maher’s speech. The danger is that the actions of FedEx may chill future free expression. Already, they have forced Maher to backpedal.
By the way, you never answered the question about blacklists. Do you find them morally objectionable or not? Simple question.
I hope I don’t sidetrack this debate too far, but I want to take it a little away from its current path.
Sears and FedEx advertised on this show in the past, and have pulled their ads, saying that it is due to these statements from Monday. They say they don’t want to support those views.
In answer to the OP, I think this is cowardly. They are allowing a few complaints to deter them from their previous convictions, which was exemplified by their support of Bill Maher’s forum.
Now the sidetrack. Pulling their ads is also foolish. By acting now, when something they didn’t like was said, they imply that they supported every view stated on the show before Monday. They give the impression that Bill Maher used to speak for them, and that now he doesn’t.
That’s just dumb. They would have been far wiser to stand back (as I assume the other sponsers are doing) and say that they don’t agree with what was said. Declare that they have not agreed with some things said on the show previously, and heartily agreed with others. Make sure that their customers and the public at large knows that they support the show as a forum of ideas, while not standing behind all the ideas individually.
By taking this stand on this one statement, they seem to be saying they stand behind every other statement ever made on the show (or at least those made by the host). That isn’t a place they should want to be.
I just wanted to mention that I apparently wrote my previous post while spoke- was writing his last one. I didn’t see his before I posted. The fact that we expressed similar ideas (that they implied their support for other ideas by denying support of this one) was a coincidence.
Still, I guess I’m glad I’m not the only one who saw it that way.
Actually, cowardly is the word most people use to describe someone who attacks someone weaker than they are, or someone who can’t defend themselves. Now, you could use ‘cowardly’ to describe shooting cruise missiles at an enemy as well. But even if you’re killing yourself to do it, murdering unsuspecting civilians who have no way to defend themselves is still basically cowardice.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say about knights and peasants. Are you saying the office workers were knights and the terrorists were peasants trying to defend themselves, and in a moment of desparation stabbed the ‘knight’ in the back? If so, you make little sense. It’s more like a peasant stabbing the knight’s stable-boy to get back at the knight.
I would be less inclined to call the suicide bombers at the USS Cole cowards BTW, because there, at least, they were attacking a warship which has a better chance of defending itself, not harmless slobs in cubicles. Saying “These terrorists want to fight the US, and they are doing it in the way that they can” sounds a bit like the ‘ends justifying the means’.
I don’t think Bill Maher said anything wrong in this case (although it *was stated very poorly, which is a fault for someone making a living off of presenting his ideas to the public).
However, I wish Bill Maher would stop calling himself a Libertarian. He’s not even close. At one time I think he may have been, but in the last few years he has come out in favor of a whole host of big government programs.
After all, this is a guy who voted for Ralph Nader, the single largest advocate for big, intrusive government in the last election.
It’s good to know that the poor, put-upon corporations like Fed-Ex have a champion like Robb to protect them from the vicious slurs that they constantly endure. If it weren’t for such brave defenders of freedom, we would descend into anarchy. :rolleyes:
But seriously, you have failed to deal in any substantial way with the arguments offered by spoke- regarding the nature of speech in a modern society. You say:
A fundamental problem with your formulation here is that, in a country where the public airwaves have been handed over (and based on the amount media corporations pay for their access to the broadcast spectrum, the term “handed over” is pretty close to the truth) to private entities, the speech that is heard needs to gain support from a relatively small number of private entities. As such, much speech never even gets that chance to “become popular” or “gain support”, because it is never heard.
This whole issue is less about Fed-Ex in particular than it is about a system that effectively determines the amount of free speech one has (in terms of being heard) based on how much money one has. Now, of course, you could respond that people still have a right to say whatever they want. But you are the one who was happy to evoke the “marketplace of ideas”. It seems to me that a true “marketplace of ideas” would give all types of speech equal access to the public forums that constitute so much of modern society’s political discourse. The type of marketplace you describe is not one of ideas at all, but a more simple one of money.
If you really think that advertisers’ decisions about what speech they want to support has not effect on the quality of public debate, or even reflects the popularity of speech, then i suggest you read some of the vast body of literature on the media and advertising.
One interesting example comes from England in the post-WWII period. There was a newspaper called The Daily Herald which was largely aimed at the working class. Its circulation in the late 1940s was greater than that of The Times of London and The Guardian combined. But The Daily Herald went bankrupt and folded while the other two papers are still going strong. The reason? The Daily Herald’s attempt to address the issues of interest to the working class meant that its editorial position was often hostile to big business, and as such it was unable to garner sufficient advertising to stay afloat, despite its large number of readers. The other two papers had fewer readers, but their editorial policies were more friendly and their readers also generally had more money to spend, so advertisers used them.
None of this is to say that we should have expected the corportations to advertise in The Daily Herald. If the behaviour of corporations teaches us anything, it is that they put their profits and the welfare of the shareholders well before any notion of the public good. Given the way that capitalism works, their actions were perfectly rational.
But to confuse this situation with a true “marketplace of ideas” is asinine. The “marketplace” in this case was determined by money, not, if we are to believe the circulation figures, by the popularity or validity of the ideas being expressed. To be more specific, it was determined as a function of numbers multiplied by economic power. There were more readers of The Daily Herald, but their combined economic power did not equal that of the advertisers or of the readers of the other papers.
(The sources for this story include:
Curran, J., “Capitalism and the Control of the Press,” in Curran et al., Mass Communication and Society, pp. 195-230.
Herman, Edward S., and Chomsky, Noam, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.
Also see Ben Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Fifth Edition.)
Robb also wrote:
Well, again you fail to address the fact that spoke- said, on more than one occasion, that Fed-Ex were well within their rights to cease their advertising. You talk about the importance of ratings to commercial television, but not once have you demonstrated that the show’s ratings have declined or will decline due to the controversy. And nor have you even suggested that Fed-Ex, if it were acting in a rational business manner, would actually wait and see whether more people supported Maher’s opinion or opposed it, rather than making the knee-jerk response that they have.
You say that “Not subsidizing speech is a valid way of letting it die out”. But nowhere have you demonstrated that the speech that took place the other night is worthy of “dying out”. If this type of speech dies because of lack of advertising support, it really has had no chance to be disseminated in the true “marketplace of ideas” that you seem so concerned about; a marketplace in which the determining factor should be the validity of the ideas and not the financial clout of corporations.
And your distinction between “active” and “passive” in this debate is ludicrous, given the privatized system of information-dissemination in this country and the control that advertisers exert over commercial media outlets. A “passive” decision to stop advertising is a very active one, if you are the media outlet trying to get shows on the air. And advertisers have often been very “active” in attempting to get media outlets to change editorial policy.
For example, Chrysler and other companies have informed the magazines in which they advertise that they want their ads to appear only next to “positive” stories. And when they talk about the type of stories that they don’t want to have their ads near, they aren’t just referring to unusually controversial statements like those of Bill Maher, but to the more general topics addressed by the magazines, Examples of “negative” issues that these companies don’t want to be associated with include articles that examine poverty, religion (except in a tone of praise), race relations in America, and homosexuality. And it has nothing to do with what is actually said in the articles - these companies just believe that the issues themselves are too much of a hot-bed and they don’t want to risk alienating people. One of the terms they used in detailing what they objected to was “provocative” articles. This is the “commitment” to free speech that you seem to love so much in corporations.
(for this story, see “Magazine Advertisers Demand Prior Notice of ‘Offensive’ Articles”, Wall Street Journal, 30 April 1997, p. A1 cover story)
Now, you might argue that each company has the right to do this. True. But if all advertisers do it (and evidence indicates that the numbers are growing) surely this will have the effect of stifling public discourse and debate over the big issues that involve all Americans. Also, the greatest effect is likely to be on the mainstream shows and magazines that most people rely on for their news and other information. There will always be small, independent media outlets that reach a smaller audience, and often charge a higher cover price rather than rely so much on advertising. But we need a system that encourages debate in the whole society, rather than stifling it, as some advertisers seem bent on doing. Again, i repeat that corporate action in this regard is legal and, in many ways, perfectly rational. But again, don’t assume that the resulting system is a true “marketplace of ideas”.
Fed-Ex is only a symptom of the problem, not its cause. There needs to be a forum in which the volume and reach of the “speech”, and the way in which its validity is debated, is not determined by whether or not some huge company is willing to fund it.
Ok, I’m about to go home and go to sleep, so I’ll keep this short. I agree with both spoke- and Saltire as they expressed their opinions on the previous page.
I don’t know why it is left justified in such a horrible manner. Don’t these people remember Brown’s admonitions about margins?
Also, I think that it should be pointed out that it is in my mind irresponsible to continuously refer to “these cowardly acts” etc. The reason being that this is the equivalent of an ad hominem attack. But I’m sure that this has been discussed on the should we call them cowards or not thread…
I personally think that FedEx pulled it’s support because they were trying to appear ultra-patriotic, a sentiment that seems awfully common in these “you are either for us or against us” days (doesn’t anybody read Lonergan anymore?) and one that I think backfired. PI has had white supremecists on before, but that was ok with FedEx? Yes, I realize that this is ground already covered above. So I’ll stop.
FedEx believed that viewers of PI would contract their delivery service. A decision made after demographic research. Upon agreeing to advertise during PI, FedEx did not imply that they supported Bill Maher or his show.
Apparently some posters simply don’t understand the concept of advertising. Get the word out, sell your product or service. Public image is all important.
No advertiser owes Bill Maher or anybody else a living.
Except for their stockholders and employees of course.
Cowardice, no.
Intelligence, yes.
Demographic research? They cancelled their advertising the following morning, as far as i’m aware. Who did the research for them? What were the figures? What were the projected loss of earnings?
And i notice you fail to deal with even a single point i made in my earlier post regarding the way in which advertising limits speech. What’s up, was it a bit too long for you to cope with? Or is it easier just to spout conventional pieties about who owes whom a living? I don’t think anyone on this thread is particularly concerned with the employment fate of Bill Maher as an individual; the issue here is essentially one of the nature of speech in a society where advertisers wield so much control over the ways in which speech is disseminated.
You say that by advertising on the show, Fed-Ex did not automatically express support for the ideas of Maher or his guests. Well, if that’s the case, and you recognise that, then why do they feel the need to pull their advertising in this case? Can’t they just put out a statement saying that they do not endorse the views expressed? They have chosen to stay with the show in the past, despite the presence of guests including white supremacists, pro- and anti-abortion people, pro- and anti-gun people, socialists, gays and straights, Christians and atheists etc. etc. etc. They were even willing to put up with actors and other celebrities spouting off on issues they knew little about.
In case you missed it the first, second and third times i said it before, Fed-Ex made a perfectly legal decision. Some might even call it rational, or “intelligent”, as you do, but i’m not sure of that, given that the impact of the show on Fed-Ex’s earnings could not be accurately predicted in such a short time. But just don’t pretend that it leaves Fed-Ex’s commitment to free speech intact.
And if you believe, given the massive layoffs and moves offshore in American business over the past three decades, that companies feel they owe their employees a living, you’re in dreamland. Executives and stockholders (and particularly large stockholders) are what counts to those who run these corporations. Employees constitute just so much material to be discarded when you can get it cheaper elsewhere.
At the least, this shows the lack of value in simply labeling things. This question of yours is a strawman. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It isn’t supported by my argument. Further, you don’t give a flip how I answer at, as I’ll bet you a doughnut that the only answer you will accept is that I do support blacklists. That you’ve asked such a loaded question and reiterated it suggests to me that you don’t understand what I’ve been writing. That’s hardly my problem.
But, you might be beginning to get the picture.
To which I say, yes, FedEx has been “underwriting speech with which they did not agree all along.” Leave out the qualifier.
Now, they stopped underwriting.
As to why they didn’t pull the advertising before, I neither know nor care. It is neither here nor there. My point, simply, is that it is not cowardice for them to not stand behind what they do not support.
mhendo, as diatribes go, I’ve decided I like yours. You call things names, but at least do the kindness of addressing them.
As near as I can tell, the best point in your favor is that the airwaves are public. If we try really hard, we can suggest that fact creates some obligations for advertisers. I’m not prepared to try that hard though. I imagine we can edit out some things, like drugs and cigarettes, but I don’t think I can obligate advertisers as the the content they must sponsor.
But, then you undercut your position with a misplaced example. (I say this, because newspapers don’t use anything analagous to public airwaves). In you example we learn
I was prepared to mourn with you the death of arguments “hostile to big business”, but I find they aren’t dead yet. I’m still at a loss as to why people with money need to pay for speech they don’t support. Yes, its about money. The world is ugly this way. People still heard about Marxism. Yes, its simplistic. It sucks not to have money.
Maybe I’ll read more of what you daid later, for now I’ll just go look up asinine.
Well I think it is because some of us see it quite differently, that advertising doesn’t limit speech. It is BECAUSE of advertising that Mahrer had a forum in the first place. Personally I think the point he was trying to make was correct, albeit quite poorly done. If the argument is that the advertisers are using public airwaves then they have a public responsibility, I would disagree. To the extent that they do use the airwaves, i.e. commercials, they can be limited by what they can say. But they do not have any obligation, morally or otherwise, to use them. if there is a necessity to maintain a public discourse on the airwaves then that would require public funding. That cannot be a responsibility of a coporation anymore than it is yours or my responsibility alone. If it is a public good then it should be publicly financed.
I was trying to think of a good example of those evil TV people and their advertisers suppressing someone’s free speech - something really indefensible. It occurred to me, there was once, not long ago, a comedian with a popular sitcom. Somewhere along the way she decided to make the character she depicted more like the person she was in real life. IIRC, the advertisers left in droves and the network took steps to hasten the shows demise.
I think in spoke-'s and mhendo’s world that person was never seen again. The awesome and disgusting power they wield very likely crushed our intrepid heroine underfoot. Score another one for the jackbooted thugs. I bet they even blacklisted her.
Arianna Huffington is a regular on PI and was a guest on the particular show in question. Her latest piece is on the whole FedEx/Sears thing, as well as ABC’s alleged intent on cancelling the show.
