Sometimes the comments are better than the posts: One Named
Hm, it's ok by you if Cheney And Coors and Free Republic collude to get out the talking points, I presume. It's ok for KSFO to send out "astroturf" emails to their dittoheads before they spend three hours not apologizing. But I guess you feel guilty about that well-known reality, and how all the major players happen to have the same talking points at the same time.
"5. Just weeks before the Media Reform Conference in Nashville, Tennessee, you begin to organize liberal bloggers, mainly “Eschatonians” or rather known as “Atriots” who blog for Duncan Black and David Brock of Media Matters, financed by George Soros, to “blogswarm” the issue."
Notice how often the first sin that evildoers accuse others of is the one they are most guilty of? Earlier allegations of corporate shilldom marked "presumably true, pending disproof."
As a matter of record, I do not blog "for" anyone. I can't even honestly and self-righteously say I've turned down offers in the name of intellectual honesty.
The readers of most leftward/anti authoritarian blogs realize that if the Sainted Clinton told us what to say - he'd cease to be sainted and become again tainted.
Not that Clinton, Kerry and others don't try to herd us independants with their astroturf appeals, but it sounds a heck of a lot more like respectful pleading, occasional begging and on particularly important occasions, hints of groveling are not unheard of.
Well, actually, to be fair, it's mostly cheerleading. At least with me, that's the sort of spam I get.. Atrios, on the other hand, may well be entertained with offers that I'd find tempting. But I'm blessed with a lower page-rank. A much, much lower page rank.
But on the liberal side, it's all very much, "Those are my people and I am their leader! Excuse me, I must follow them!"
The reason why all the lefty and centerist blogs are taking this from the same angle is because there is only one angle. Fair comment, good and legal. Disney/ABC, wrong, bad, possibly illegal, certainly stupid. All else - beside the point.
Nobody's arguing with the right for any damn-fool to say any damn-fool thing they care to. We do object to damn-foolishness being presented as fact, but the best response is more and more accurate free speech. Indeed, from a free speech perspective, KSFO is what you would call a "target-rich environment."
What we object to is the outrage and bullying as a response to them being held accountable in a tiny, tiny way for the legal and moral consequences of their exercise in free speech.
Calling it a "boycott" as if that were a bad thing is dumb. Boycotts are perfectly legitimate tactics, one dear to the Right. Various Right-wing groups call for boycotts all the time to punish media they disapprove of. Can we say "Dixie Chicks?" Ooo, I KNEW that we could!
If it HAD been a boycott, I would not object. It just happens that, factually speaking, Spocko made a very significant point of NOT calling for a boycott. Factually, it was a completely different tactic, and one that is obviously both more fair and probably more effective.
All anyone had to do was to read what Spocko actually said, and compare it with what Lee said to know that Lee is, in fact a lazy lyin' bastard who can't be bothered to do his homework and either too stupid or too far wrong to argue against the coming liberal hordes honestly.
Personally, whatever he called it, I didn't give a rat's ass. If corporate America has become too careless to review what they are associating their brands with, ain't no skin off my nose. I'm an unapologetic Libertarian and capitalist, but I'm not a FatCapitalist. The action (and the fun) of real Free Market Capitalism includes watching for such mis-steps - and capitalizing on them.
Yep, had I stumbled across such clips, they would have gone straight to undervalued competitors in the KSFO market. "What's in YOUR wallet?"
But Spocko is more charitable than I. He informed advertisers of what sort of programs were being associated with their brand. And guess what information comes out in the wash? Disney/ABC was MISREPRESENTING the content as being "family friendly." Maybe if it were the Manson Family...
They were lying to their client base, as a matter of corporate policy at some level, and the SLAPP suit against Spocko argues that it was at a higher, rather than at a lower one. Now, I dunno about what the news division at KSFO thinks (or ABC news for that matter,) but to ME, that's news, at least three bells worth. Because we call that "Theft by false pretenses."
While the winger blogs talk about "all but one" account returning to KSFO, that's based on a naked allegation BY KSFO talkers who are, as we have established, famous liars. I'm sure that statistic does not include those who have simply chosen to NOT renew ads, as opposed to pulling them. I'm sure it doesn't include those who said "sorry, but the results we got didn't meet our expectations."
MasterCard's decision - as well as all the others - probably has less to do with the content of the speech and far more with the demographics represented by the speakers. MasterCard (and other advertisors) want "family freindly" programming because families have good credit and are willing to use it. People who live in their parent's basements and call into Lee and Rush are not so likely to have good jobs and good credit. "How gullible do you have to be..." leads to other questions that eventually wander around to issues of unrecoverable debt. LIBERAL talkers and information providers? MUCH more attractive demographics.
I'd say it's likely that advertisers have shifted or are beginning to shift their buys toward Air America, because if the Democracy Now survey results are indicative of the same general demographic, then educated, White, Urban, upper-middle class professionals are much better credit risks than... well the sort that considers Lee Rodgers persuasive.
Miracle fat-burning pills and "get rich by spending in just 30 days" on the other hand, might just perform BETTER in Lee's demographic. You see, it's not about what's said, it's what sorta people listen.
Oh, and as for your non-sequiteur about Mike's "vulgarity" in holding up that infamous sign...
Vulgar, yes. And funny. Very, very funny; the very essence of a GraphicTruth. I've listened to Hannedy and he does indeed suck - and I'm comparing him to O'Rielly, Glenn Beck and other conservatives. Given how long that camera LINGERED, it's pretty clear that the rank and file working stiffs who have to suffer through his excruciating idiocy in order to cash a paycheck pretty much agree that Hannedy Sucks Ass.
And as the joke goes - not particularly well, either.
tag: blogicalthought, Lee Rodgers, Hate Speech, Hate Radio, famous liars, theft by false pretenses