Michael Savage: I'll sue if advertisers are pressured to pull out!

How do you suggest he be debated? MSNBC isn’t giving ME a forum in which to debate him, they are giving him the forum to spew his hateful bile, I can assure you there will be no debate of any kind.

Frankly, I think controversy is fine and I welcome it. Wildly divergent views are great, and I encourage them. I was damn sorry to see * Politically Incorrect * chased off the air, and Ann Coulter with it. I would have welcomed Savage on that kind of show. Because there really was a debate, and his venom could be shown for what it was.

But this is not the same thing. Not every point of view deserves to have it’s own show on television.

You are probably correct that there will be no way to debate him on his show. But certainly he can be debated in other forms of media, not just his show. For example, when Bill Maher made his coward remark it was debated all over the media.

I’m not saying “every point of view deserves to have it’s own show on television”. I’m saying if a network wants to give him one, and he wants to do it, and enough people want to watch it to make it economical, it should exist without self-appointed cultural police deciding it is bad and denying me the right to make up my own mind. And the cowardly advertisers need to grow some cojones and ignore these people under the fantasy that they need to protect the masses from speech they don’t like, and the self-delusion that they are somehow qualified to make the judgement of what should be aired and what shouldn’t.

Do you see this type of thing limits the amount of ideas that we hear and discuss? Like I asked before; if every controversial view is chased off the air through these means, how this good? Do you want only perfectly middle-of-the-road commentators? Where do you draw the line?

Are you under the woeful misapprehension that we are currently enjoying a free flow of ideas and information, completely unencumbered or influenced by market concerns or even political ones?

Cuz if you is, I gots me some Florida land I’d can give you a great deal on!

This is just the people exerting some influence of their own. For once.

So why make it worse?

I’ll ask a third time: Do you see this type of thing limits the amount of ideas that we hear and discuss? Like I asked before; if every controversial view is chased off the air through these means, how this good? Do you want only perfectly middle-of-the-road commentators? Where do you draw the line?

Exactly! Savage (along with Rush, Hannity, the rest of FNC) love it when they are the only game in town. But, offer up the least bit of resistence (i.e. a caller who can nail Rush but has to lie to the screener to get through - yeah, Rush, we know) and they whimper like scalded dogs.

Sweet Jebus, I love it when morally corrupt sychophants are exposed!

Revtim, why should the right-wingers be the only ones who get to use this tactic?

I’ll ask you: how many left to insanely far left voices are on television right now, comparable to: Sean Hannity, Rush, Bill O’, Dr. Laura, Dennis Prager, Larry Elder, The Nixon Guy, blah blah blah. Hmmm? Can you name… one? Two?

I think we have a big balance gap here, Rev, don’ you? Do you think we really need MORE right wing voices, farther right than ever before? Does that contribute to the number of ideas, the variety of ideas? Hmm?

If you really want variety of ideas, lots of voices, lots of sources, bring back Maher to non-premium TV, give Mike Moore his own weekly talking head fest, put Ralph Nader on after Micheal Savage, give James Carville a primetime hour, where’s Jesse Jackson’s Hour of Power, someone talk Clinton into doing a show, etc.

When that happens. your complaint may have some merit. Til then, I really don’t think there’s a damn thing wrong with doing everything we possibly can to stop ** yet * another * ** vicious, loudmouoth, hatemonger from the right end of the spectrum from being legitimized by getting a daily platform.

Are you referring to suing? If that’s found to have a legal standing, then I’d love lefties to be able to use it. I’m more a lefty than a right-winger, myself.

I hate it when anybody uses the cowardy scare-the-advertisers move. I don’t care if it’s used against the right or the left.

How on earth did you get the impression I only want right-wingers to use it?

Stoid, I suspect you are under the mistaken impression that I am a right-winger, and defend Savage because we share beliefs. That is incorrect, I agree there needs to be more left-wing commentators that share my views. I don’t care about Savage, I just hate that these people feel they have the right make the decision of whether I should watch the show or not.

The fact that there are more right wingers makes no difference. I feel the scare-the-advertisers tactic is wrong for reasons I’ve already stated, whether it is used against the left or the right.

If a show has enough viewers to make it economically viable, those who don’t like it should just change the channel and stop pretending to be the TV police. This applies to left and right wing shows.

I do wish there were more left wing commentators, but this cowardly scare-the-advertisers tactic isn’t going to help that. Do you think if the network kicks off Savage they are going to give the timeslot to Michael Moore? Dream on.

No, I wasn’t.

They aren’t making that decision, and it isn’t about you. The people who are making the decision are the people with the money. Squeaky wheel gets the grease, you know.

Exactly. All the more reason to keep him off. Plenty of right wing voices already.

You don’t seem to be consistent in your argument, Revtim.

Of course they are making the decision. When they scare off the advertisers, they aren’t consulting me first. They are actively trying to kill a show with disregard to anybody else’s opinion. They feel their’s is the opinion that matters, and to hell with anybody else. Somehow, they have convinced themselves that they know what people should watch, and their judgement is better than mine. They are wrong.

And how am I being inconsistent?

Revtim, “they” are not saying that “they” know what you should watch. If you feel that you want to watch Savage’s show then go right ahead. Nobdoy is trying to stop you. The groups who are organizing a boycott are just saying that companies which support this filth should be prepared to face the consequences of their actions.

You keep personlizing it, Rev. It’s not about you, it’s about him.

And in one breath you say you want variety, but you seem to concede that there isn’t really any, and that adding him certainly won’t increase it. So that must not really be your beef. Your beef seems to really be that you want access to everything to decide for yourself and you feel that others are deciding for you.

I really do not mean to be insulting when I say this, but that seems to be a bit… self-centered. Step outside yourself and see if you can see it differently.

You know, that’s exactly what I thought when Fox killed Firefly.

My point being, there are people out there right now making these decisions. Why shouldn’t it be a group of people, all democracy-like, instead of just whoever has enough money to own a TV network?

Good point, mr.Viz. * Somebody * is deciding A over B… It’s certainly not Revtim, but he apparently believes that the suits at MSNBC are far better at making these decisions than anyone else. He is comfortable with THEM deciding who he gets to see or not.

Things that make you go hmmm…

I’m using “me” as an example of a viewer. I didn’t mean just me, for Christ’s sake.

And yes, I’m more comfortable with the suits at MSNBC deciding what is on their own network that they pay for and control, because they are driven by CONSUMER DEMAND. If they decide to ignore demand and put shows on that people don’t want to watch, they will go out of business, so they will have to put shows on that people want to to watch. They are forced by the market to be at least somewhat democratic.

If they think Savage or anybody has enough of an appeal, even if others don’t like him, I think they should be able to put him on even if he’s controversial - without the culture police using their cowardly advertiser scaring tactics.

It’s a hell of lot more democratic to let MSNBC control what is on their OWN NETWORK, since they are driven by demand.

The advertising-scaring people short circuit the demand-driven system, because they wouldn’t even be watching the show anyway. They are the self-centered ones, not me. I want people to watch what they want, whether I like it or not. My TV can change the channel, even turn off.

How ironic that you call me self-centered, when I’m the one who is NOT trying to impose my views on others. My whole point is that viewers should be able watch their shows without people who wouldn’t watch them anyway, who have nothing to do with making or broadcasting the show, imposing their opinions of what should and should not be on TV. I think you are radically incorrect as to which side is self-centered. It is the people who feel they know better than the viewers and even MSNBC what should be on their own network that are incredibly self-centered.

It IS a group of people, the viewers. When shows are cancelled because of lack of ratings, isn’t that the perfect example of a democracy-like decision? Not enough people decided to watch the show to make it economically feasible. It’s a classic democratic example.

Isn’t that FAR more democractic than a show being cancelled being of an advertiser boycott led by people who would never watch the show anyway?

Why can’t people like Stoid see that?

It isn’t a “democratic” example, its an economic one.

Lets suppose a venemous, knuckle walking troglodyte like, say, oh, I dunno,…Mike Savage can draw 10 percent market share, TV wise. And let us further suppose that the utterly amoral money junkies who inhabit suits decide that this is acceptable, good enough.

Lets further say that Tide detergent decides to sponsor the network. This is how it is frequently done, they buy a “block” of advertising time, spread over several shows. Demographics show that at a certain point in time, Tide is reaching 10 percent of the people, and this is econmically feasible for the advertising buck paid. Tide smiles and says “It is good.” Some of those people are going to buy Tide.

But the Tide hears from others. Letters and e-mails roll in, saying, in effect, “pull this advertising or I will never, ever buy Tide again.” That puts a whole different spin on things. Tide knows that not every viewer of its advert will buy Tide next time they shop, they’re playing the odds that some will. But if they know that a given portion of the public will never purchase Tide again as long as they live, even if that portion is relatively small, its not a good economic bet.

'Cause she’s smarter than you?

Was a bordeline personal insult really necessary? I expected more from you, elucidator. I feel no ill will towards Stoid, I just disagree with her. Can’t we discuss this without taking shots?

Your example demonstrates that the boycotters make it economic based on fear, instead of economic based on ratings. It seems to support my point that it makes the decision less democratic.

Why should the boycotters have a stronger vote that the vote of simply not watching the show? They should less of a vote, IMHO, since they wouldn’t watch the show anyway.

Remember that these tactics can be used against shows you agree with, not just assholes like Savage.

I guess market forces, including consumer pressure, can kill anyone. Donahue meet Savage. But, if the controversy is big enough, Savage might end up on pay cable like Bill Maher.