Why not?
Many companies dislike controversy and many more dislike supporting jerks. Ingraham behaved like an jerk. So it makes perfect sense to say to advertisers “You might want to re-think supporting this jerk.”
It’s a question of defending the moral high ground. It’s easy when you’re calling for a boycott of someone who espouses a generally hateful position. It’s a little harder if you’re basing it on how you were treated personally.
(I’m just trying to help get our fledgling activist off to a good start.)
He seems to be off to a pretty good start. 
Ingraham picked a fight with him – on personal terms, not on the substance of his ideas – and he got her to back down. If she had debated with him in good faith, I would hope that he’d have responded in good faith. But since the idea of her debating anyone in good faith is a pure hypothetical, I guess we’ll never know.
From Twitter: “That moment when you try to bully a high school student and forget that everyone in the country likes them more than you.”
Ingraham was the one who threw the Roman salute at the RNC convention in 2016, isn’t she?
There was a bit of a fürher over that in some circles, but her overall body language does not support that interpretation.
It snowballed today, up to six now: Nutrish, TripAdvisor, Wayfair, Expedia, Hulu and Nestlé.
Actually, yes he can, and yes he did.
It’s not about whether she was mean to him; Hogg pointed out the obvious, which is that a journalist is mocking a teenager (a kid) who just watched other kids bleed to death. His crime is activism so that other children don’t have to watch their friends bleed to death.
This offense goes beyond one mean-spirited tweet by Ingraham. It’s part of a larger effort by right wing trolls to discredit a movement and they’re showing once again that rather than debate people on merits, they’d rather smear people. Conservatives are showing people that they are fucking shitty, shitty people – and David Hogg’s boycott is reminding people of that fact. That’s what this is really about.
It’s ironic that the teenagers of this country are the adults in the room.
I’d argue that it’s easy when you’re reminding advertisers who support right wing trolls of the obvious: they’re supporting shithead “people” that they really would do well not to support.
This really should not be a debate over the proper manner in which to protest - they’ve already passed that test, I’d say, given the success of their public gatherings. This particular example has little to do with etiquette in public discourse. Rather, it’s a matter of simple, human decency, and pointing out that the Laura Ingrahams, Alex Jones, Rush Limbaughs, and Wayne Lapierres of the world are simply NOT decent.
The Parkland kids have been amazingly savvy when dealing with the media. Hogg’s initial tweet after Ingraham’s attack was perfect:
. Within hours, a 17 year old kid who recently survived an attack was mobilizing hundreds of thousands of people to take on a media conglomerate.
“Hey! You teenagers who are being personally attacked by a national tv show host-Play fair!”
Appeals to basic human decency are useless against an opponent who possesses none, employed by a conglomerate that scorns the very idea of it. Their one vulnerability, the only true motivator, the one thing they fear losing, is money. That young people instinctively understand that is probably making more than a few wrinkled hands feel clammy.
Young people also have leverage because they are young. Advertisers know that they are going to be consumers here soon, and don’t want to piss them off. The current crop of Fox news viewers will be shuffling off this mortal coils within a decade or so.
Advertisers don’t want to lose an entire generation of consumers that are turned off from their offerings due to association with someone who makes fun of school shooting survivors.
As we have seen, the effect is indirect. When the opponent reveals their deficiency, those who actually do shun that party. Sadly, lack of human decency has been demonstrated to be a path to power.
That bitch is getting everything she richly deserves, and I’m glad that Hogg isn’t accepting her “apology.” Ingraham and the rest of the right wing troll factory thought that they could bully, taunt, and victimize the MSD students the same way they smeared Donald Trump’s and Roy Moore’s sexual assault accusers. As it turns out, these kids know how to fight back. And they’re winning.
And the sooner we can convince advertisers to help us flush that shit-stain known as Fox News down the toilet, the better off we will all be. More than anyone, right wing troll media are responsible for the toxic discourse in our society and they need to be vanquished once and for all.
And his 14-year-old sister, who is also a Parkland student, told Ingraham to “grow up”.
As of the last time I checked, 12 advertisers have pulled their ads from her show.
I think boycotts are a form of intimidation. There should some sort of protections against abuses of it. I haven’t really thought it out, but there is something wrong with trying to take away the means of someone providing for their family when you disagree with them.
I wonder how a boycott of a business owned by David Hogg’s parents would be received? Would that be fair? He’s insulted me and millions of other people who believe in 2nd Amendment rights.
How would you propose to limit the speech of people who simply said the equivalent of “you shouldn’t shop there”?
“Will no one think of the poor multimillionaire media star and her ghod-given right to smear the reputations of teenagers? :(”
:rolleyes:
Boycotts are supposed to be intimidating. No one is being boycotted for supporting the Second Amendment, they are being boycotted for trying to intimidate teenagers with personal attacks. Completely justified.