I don’t see how anyone can justify trying to convince an advertiser to not run ads on a particular program.
In the United States there is supposed to be free speech. If you don’t like a certain show, turn to another station. Why do you think you should control what others may want to see or hear.
This kind of thing has been tried against Howard Stern, Glen Beck and others. And the dumbest thing is that it doesn’t work. There are always plenty of advertisers out there willing to sell their products on these people’s programs. Often it ends up making the shows even more popular when word gets out that a particular group is trying to get sponsors to stop supporting a certain show.
Stern gets it from the Religious Right which isn’t too surprising; they want to restrict a lot of things, but when Beck gets it from the Left, its a little disheartening. I thought Liberals were supposed to be for freedoms like speech, assembly, etc.
Because the boycotter is merely using the free market.
Essentially, you “boycott” thousands of products every day, every year. There are foods and cars and clothes that you don’t buy for reasons more petty than “your company is profiting off the words of some racist/idiot/liar/asshole/whatever.” The peanut butter is a little too sticky or the clothing doesn’t have quite the right cut or that furniture store is a little too far out of your way. So, you don’t buy it. And you’d think anyone is an idiot who told you that you were obligated to spread out your purchasing to make it “fair” to other companies.
Same with your TV watching. You don’t watch everything on TV. You encourage people to watch shows that you like. Maybe you post in threads in Cafe Society talking about how other shows really suck. So because of this ‘biased’ TV watching, other shows may suffer. Someone takes your review to heart and doesn’t bother watching a show.
By boycotting, what you are doing is telling a company, “you know what, I like your products, but I cannot abide your actions here - please change, and I will return and encourage others to do so.” You are also changing the channel on the show you don’t like, and telling other people, “that show sucks.”
You are engaging in free speech and using the free market, just like everyone else, and for perhaps even better reasons than usual - like not liking the label on a tube of toothpaste.
The right to free speech is a restriction on the government. Individuals and groups certainly have the freedom to try to boycott.
If a person finds a show objectionable, what recourse does he have? Obviously, he can not watch the show. Problem solved, right? But what if there is reason to take the show off the air entirely? The KKK have a right to believe what they want; but would it be good for society to have them broadcasting nationwide for an hour every evening in Prime Time? How does someone making the decision not to watch make any difference? The only practical way to remove an offensive show is to make it known to the people who are putting up the money for it that it’s offensive, and that they are losing sales. The sponsors can then decide whether the sales they make because they sponsor the show are greater than the sales they lose because of it. If Glen Beck or Howard Stern or the KKK or whoever find that their funding is cut off, they are free to seek other sources. It’s Freedom of the Marketplace.
Free speech applies to everybody. It applies to the people who wish to influence the advertisers, the people who produce the television show, and to the advertisers that sponsor the show.
Are you familiar with a man named Bill Mahe? He used to have a show on ABC called Politically Incorrect that was taken off the air because advertisers withdrew support and affiliate stations did not wish to air the show any longer because of statements he made in the days following 9/11. More recent examples of people who have lost their shows because others don’t like what they have to say include Don Imus and Laura Schlessinger.
I think you have a rather myopic idea of what freedom of speech means. It doesn’t mean people are free to say what they want without fear of criticism or consequences. It just means you’re free to say what you want without government interference.
Is my right of free speech constrained because Mangosteen isn’t helping to pay for my website hosting, let alone my communications satellite launch?
A successful campaign to peel off advertising support isn’t “stopping” or “controlling” anyone’s speech. They remain as free as ever to get their message out by any means they can personally undertake, or afford to hire out. They’re just losing the benefit of some other people’s money to do it with.
Well you have to boycott advertisers because Nielsen (TV) and Arbitron (Radio) are the only game in their respective towns, for ratings. Most people mistakenly believe these rating are scientifc.
They are not. Nielsen will even tell you they are not now, nor have ever tried to measure total ratings for a market. They measure a subset of people likely to buy advertiser’s products. And there are dozens of other flaws.
This is why you can get shows and songs that don’t match what most people want to see. You always hear people say “if so many people are against, XXX why is it on.”
Because no one ever asks them in a ratings poll.
You can’t merely say “If you don’t like it turn it off.” Why? Because TV/Radio are not free markets. There are only so many TV stations and radio stations available in each market.
Right now if I had a hundred million dollars, I couldn’t just start up a TV station in Chicago. There’s no available channels. And unless someone wanted to sell me one, I can’t compete.
This is why when you have a restricted market you need governmental oversight to regulate and even the playing field.
If one advertiser goes there are always more but they are not going to be willing to pay the same rate, thus the cost of the ad spot is driven down. Plus you have to pay sales people more money to drum up the business which was lost.
If you don’t like it you can change the channel, but that isn’t DOING anything about the problem.