Sunday, July 30, 2006

CALLING FOR A BOYCOTT

A new Springfield blogger -- Betty B. -- proposes a plan to hit "hate media" when it hurts. Talk radio's daily spew of venom draws plenty of sponsors. So does the swill passing for programming on Fox's "news" channel. Betty B. proposes:
If we are to live in a society that has freedom of speech, I realize that we must tolerate a multitude of viewpoints. However, we do not have to reward the sponsors of hate radio and hate TV with our business. Let's start a boycott of those who advertise on hate media. If half of us fall on the other side of the equation, that would make a serious dent in their revenue. They will pay attention and withdraw their ads if enough people protest through letters, emails and stop buying their products and services. I find it excruciating to listen for more than a minute, so at this moment I don't have any suggestions of advertisers to boycott. Please help me compile a list, and I'll publish it here.
Here being the blog of Betty B. You'll find that link in the CHATTERWORTHY blogroll, at right, or by clicking here.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it be better to get MORE liberal media going? As in "save the sinking ship known as Air America"?

John Stone said...

AAR says they will be in the black by the end of the year. I think this is pretty good since they started from zero only 2 1/2 years ago.

Actually, I have said that if Po' Kenny Meyers had any business sense at all about programming he would have taken the old KICK station that he overpaid for and put AAR on it.

He doesn't and he didn't.

Anonymous said...

I just love how view points we disagree with are "vile hate speech".

It's kinda like the vile hate speech I see on the posts on this blog.

Of course talking about others "swill" and "venom" is considered rational discourse and weel within the bounds of fair play here I'm sure.

Anonymous said...

Pot, kettle, black Anon #2. You know there are plenty of us moderates who are sick to death of your knee jerk reaction to everything anyone three centimeters left of far, flaming right is. We're sick of you jamming Christianity down our throats, when this country was founded on religious freedom. We're sick of you trashing our economy, when the previous administration had it back on track. We're sick of your ridiculous campaign to make liberal a bad word. Hey, did you know that there are liberals who are Christians too? You don't want to talk about that do you? The fact that you people call yourselves moral and just is frigging laughable.

Please do bugger off.

Anonymous said...

Anon #3

Touched a nerve?

You went off on tangents I didn't even approach.

For the record, I'm just about dead center on most polictial leanings, so I can see extremes on both sides.

And I've been able to see them in Mr. Davis' work as long as I can remember.

I'd talk about liberal Christians all day if you wanted to ... There are political liberals who are Christian and there are Theological liberals who are Christian? Which liberals were you referring to?

Oh yeah, you don't care about any of that, you just wanted to knee jerk and place me in a box.

How open mineded and tolerant of you.

Anonymous said...

Gee anon, are you trying to tell me YOU'RE open minded and tolerant? I certainly don't see it.

MrsThurstonHowell said...

Anon #2 you set yourself up on the first post & it was purposeful & transparent. I propose we also boycott out-of-control agitators such as youself. Care to post your advertisers? How about we start with a Username.

Anonymous said...

Okay, just stop it all of you. Virtually every human being judges others. How else do we make decisions? If you like right wing radio or blogs, then choose those. If you like left wing radio or blogs, choose them. If you're in the middle, choose thusly. But both sides (all sides) need to stop with the petty "you judge us!" "no, you judge us!" "you're hateful" "no you're hateful." Sounds like bunch of 8 year olds on the playground. And you all need to go to time out, or better still, have your mouths washed out with soap.

John Stone said...

Some actually need to occasionally wash their crotch with soap.... At least I could sit in the Moxie for the second show and feel safe.

On the subject: Why would any advertiser in their right mind buy even a ten dollar spot on any station with arbitrols consistently below 3? Selling to people my age who spend their disposable income on Viagra and Depends?

Anonymous said...

Anon # 2 Here

I suppose I could legitimately be charged with trolling to a point.

But, I'm hardly "out of control"

MrsThurstonHowell I don't have a blogger account so, no user name. And I don't have ANY advertisers. I don't even have a blog ... but I Do read a few, as you can probably see.

My first post was only attempting to point out that Mr. Davis does the same thing that the vile, hate spewing, venomous media outlets.

As to Mr. Stones question ... I think that you'll find that media is getting more and more niche ... it has happened in radio long ago, and you're starting to see it more on TV. If you get numbers below threes, you're still reaching someone, and if it happens to be a group that an advertiser wants all the better.

Same question applies to TV, how was 33 selling any ads when in many books they couldn't even show a 1...

Ron Davis said...

Anon 2:

Prove it. Go through this blog's entries and find where I'm typing "vile, hate-spewing venom." Go ahead. I'll wait.

You noted earlier that you've been able to see "extremes on both sides" in my writing for years. Why don't you explain that one, too?

Comments like the ones you've posted are especially frustrating because you refuse to use logic or reason to try to make your point. You call people names. From a child, I expect this. From an alleged adult, I do not.

And please, quit using the excuse that you don't have a Blogger account as the reason why you post anonymously. It'll take you two minutes, maybe less, to set up an account. It's free.

Larry Litle said...

Wow! It looks like I missed all the fun of name-calling and intolerance. I was even in the mood for a sarcastic response but I missed it.

Here is my response to Ron's post and to Betty B. Good for you, Betty B. If you want to boycott the products on a radio station, do it. As Americans, we have to grab people's attention to through their pocket books. Just look at our politicians to see the evidence. I may not join in with your boycott but I am not one to throw stones at it. After all, I grew up Southern Baptist and they tried to boycott everything. As a moderate conservative, I have no problem with your boycott.

In turn, I hope you have no ill feeling that I don't like funding NPR. It is not because I think they are too liberal but because I see it as a waste of taxpayer's dollars. Lets have them pick up sponsors. Apparently any station can get them from what I was reading in the above comments.

As you see, I will post with my name. It is Larry Litle. I will even use my blogger account. (Hey 417 Pundit, can you edit my comments for grammar issues. Please.)

DocLarry said...

Larry, you're mixing apples and oranges. Boycotting a commercial radio station's advertisers is hardly the equivalent of objecting to tax dollars to fund public broadcasting. Would you see it as equivalent to my objecting to tax dollars paying for nuclear weapons?

Of course not. Public broadcasting is NOT funded with advertising dollars. In fact, advertising is expressly prohibited on public stations. Yes, they have underwriters, which hardly covers the cost of operations.

Is there nothing you find worthwhile on public broadcasting?

Anonymous said...

From a Ron Davis Comment:

"Prove it. Go through this blog's entries and find where I'm typing 'vile, hate-spewing venom.' Go ahead. I'll wait."

I can't, but, that wasn't really what I was trying to do. I was really trying to express that the programming on Fox ( which you did call swill ) is really about on par ( and I would argue MUCH less biased) than what you type here. But a blog shouldn't be held to the same standards as a network( since it really is all about one persons opinion ).

In other words if Fox is "vile, hate-spewing venom" so is Chatter. That's all.

As for your writing in earlier jobs, if just remember reading your stuff in the News-Leader and thinking( Man, this guy is liberal ). Granted I was in high school, but, I still picked up on it then.

As I read my comments, I don't see where I called anyone any names( Find it ... I'll wait), I got called some, I was even accused of trying to shove Christianity down everyones throat ... none of which came from anything I typed.


So, now that I see that it only takes two minutes to get an account, I'll just have to come down with ... sorry. Don't want to. It wouldn't matter anyway. You just want a name to add to the abuse. (I'm sure that MrsThurstonHowell thinks I'm VDJ, but I'm not in radio)

MrsThurstonHowell said...

No actually I thought you were Imus. I'm one of those odd people who would have to actually watch Fox or listen to this VDJ person to find out who the advertisers are to boycott them. Reading bloggers like you are about as close as I get to the really wild side of life (for those who are keeping track-that's sarcastic insult #1).

Just give Lovey Saturday night bluegrass on NPR while she sips a cool one in the garden.

DocLarry said...

Anon,

Ann Coulter has suggested a Supreme Court Justice should be poisoned, that Timothy McVeigh should have parked his truck in front of the New York Times building, that Bill Clinton should be assassinated.

Michael Savage referred to an unidentified caller to his radio show as a "sodomite" and said he should "get AIDS and die." He has also called the "American left" the "Nazis of our time" and said "Liberalism is, in essence, the HIV virus."

Glenn Beck has referred to Cindy Sheehan as "a tragedy slut," has said he's "thinking about killing Michael Moore" and wondered if it was wrong, and repeatedly referred to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter as "a waste of skin."

Rush Limbaugh referred to the alleged Duke rape victim as "ho," regularly calls feminists "feminazis," has said that women want to be "hired as eye candy."

Surely you can see the difference between such statments regularly emanating from right-wing talk radio hosts and what Ron Davis writes on this blog, can't you?

And by the way, you could still use the Anonymous button for leaving a comment and include your name, as Andy Cline does frequently. Or are you more comfortable just being a troll?

Anonymous said...

This, from a sincere friend of Chatter.

Ron, Doclarry, everyone: Please grow a little skin in regard to your critics. And how about trying to act a little less like them?

The exchanges on this blog read increasingly like the transcript of a fifth-grade shouting match. Chatter used to be a place where interesting ideas were tossed about, turned inside out, and thoughtfully debated and discussed.

Lately it has become a right-versus-left fingerpoke-to-the-eye competition, a venue for personal attacks, and a place where even occasional anonymous posters (like myself) become vilified for simply wishing to exercise an option offered to them by the creator of this blog, which is to remain anonymous.

Name-calling, blame-shifting and ignorant rants do little to set Chatter apart in a sea of blogs. This is the sort of behavior that one might expect from members of Congress, commercial-driven talk radio, and pundits of both the extreme right and left. All of it is obnoxious and ultimately does nothing to forge genuinely intelligent discussion.

I challenge everyone here to work a little harder at expressing themselves like thoughtful, civil grown-ups. Fun can still be had. The forum for community conversation on topics local to global can continue. And maybe, just maybe in the course of that, Chatter's traffic level might rise, right along with its credibility and reputation as a source of fresh, sharp thoughts.

Ron Davis said...

Anonymous:

I concur. Thank you for your tempered words.

Larry Litle said...

DocLarry,

I was really just rambling. Betty B. stated that the only thing is decent to listen to is NPR. I just was responding to that and rambling on. I was not really trying to show a direct link between the two. I agree that they are apples and oranges.

I do understand how NPR and PBS are set up. I am simply under the opinion that their time has past with all the variety of radio and tv stations. I am not saying that these stations are not worthy to watch or listen to but rather my issue is that they should be paid for by advertisers rather than taxpayers. The cream will float to the top and those programs will be broadcast. If 104.1 can stay afloat and find advertisers then NPR could also. Why force taxpayers to pay for this? Am I channeling Keith?

Alright, I have blogsquatted enough on Chatter for today. Thank you for your patience with me, Ron.

Betty B. said...

Interesting comments. I do support the local NPR station, with yearly contributions generally exceeding $1,000. It's that important to me to have their presence in the Ozarks. I also support the local PBS station to a lesser extent and am a great fan of C-Span's Washington Journal and Book TV. Air America has promise and I would love to see them come to Springfield and Kansas City. They currently have a station in St. Louis. I listen to them occasionally on the internet. However, I would not support them if they chose to be equally ugly in slinging venom from the left.

Larry Litle said...

Betty,
I respect that greatly. Welcome to our ranks.

MrsThurstonHowell said...

A last media comment for Betty and others-If you occasionally watch TV for news and don't have satellite, consider getting it for Free Speech TV & the award winning news program Democracy Now.

Duane Keys said...

Well the bloggers meeting tonight ought to be fun!

Larry, sit close to me. The lib-ruls will outnumber us again. ;)