It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

142 Corporations + Fed. Gov. Cancel Right-Wing Advertising, not Left-Wing

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Apparently since 2012, major corporations including the US Post Office, the US Army, all national hardware retail shops (Home Depot, Ace Hardware, etc etc) except perhaps for Sears, and many others have opted to cancel ads on select right-wing media as reported by "Think Progress" (obviously a "progressive" (ie regressive) media source. They say in their story:

national companies that have “specifically asked” their advertisments not be played during the Rush Limbaugh Show. Premiere is the distributor of Limbaugh’s program. The advertisers have also requested to be excluded from other right-wing hosts including Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

Source: thinkprogress.org...

While I could not find any left-wing talkers that were banned, only the right-wing ones, I don't think censorship by private companies is appropriate unless someone is advocating violence. While they have a right to do this, I have a right to not shop at the companies supporting censorship. I don't either respect or listen to these right-wing talk shows but can't help but notice that Kohl's department store wasn't banning Rush Limbaugh for advocating a war with Iraq, yet when Rush made an off remark about a about left-wing progressives that was too much for Kohl's to handle.

I notice that only the crap food companies are banning the right-wing (Dominoes and Little Ceasers for example). Apparently the left-wing loving corporations cannot manage to produce good food because they expect the government to figure out how to do that for them?

The globalist pigs whose governments are destroying us through our economy want bigger government because it benefits the pigs. So of course the big corporations are going to be against right-wing speech which is neutral or even negative to increasing the scope of government to a global scale. And regardless of how big government gets its never big enough for them, and the US is now almost more communist/socialist than any other system. Once government spending tops 40% to 50% of the economy (called the government spending to GDP ratio) the country basically turns to hell. So, Greece was at about 50% for example last time I checked. The US is above 30% and has been rising since the income tax began in 1903. Not coincidentally, the economy relative to the rest of the world has become proportionally worse, with a notable first break in 1929. So it took less than 30 years of a mixed economy to start trashing the US. Only after 1970 with the government going full blown communist with banking (100% government fiat money supply) did income disparity finally start taking its toll and the country started to fail. Welcome to the downhill road that may NEVER stop until people recognize that pro-violence in economy government results in the end for us all.

It's immoral to spend other people's money without their permission. The largest corporations manage to have fully customized contracts for all their millions of employees. Its time for the US and other governments to realize that we will come to a point where we will DEMAND the same from them. Because if you don't have any bargaining power, you don't have a contract. Unless you have a signed written contract with your countries government where you have bargaining power, you ARE a SLAVE not a citizen. A social contract requires that we get to choose what government agencies get our money, IF ANY. So yes everyone wants the roads and schools and those stay. But most of the other 10,000 or however many departments making up the rest of the 90% of spending will have to go.

Back to the point, I do think the way to the future is shopping at companies that behave according to a high standard of community values and ethics. Consequently I'll be avoiding Kohl's as they have a low standard of values with their support of censorship on select political views. The easiest thing we can do to make a real difference is shop with companies with good values and let them know that is why we are giving them our business.
edit on 24-9-2016 by wayforward because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

Wow this is not what it proposes to be from the title: 142 Corporations + Fed. Gov. Ban Right-Wing Advertising, not Left-Wing

No, in 2012, 142 companies didn't want their advertising played during the Rush Limbaugh show. While you're ranting don't forget to acknowledge that 90%+ of political talk radio is hosted by mostly far-right hosts.

New title:

LEFT-WING OPINION IS BANNED IN THE TALK RADIO MARKET BY RIGHT-WING MEDIA CORPORATIONS WHO CONTROL IT



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Shhh, you'll rock the boat. Its 'public works' not socialism and 'community', not Communism.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: wayforward

Wow this is not what it proposes to be from the title: 142 Corporations + Fed. Gov. Ban Right-Wing Advertising, not Left-Wing

No, in 2012, 142 companies didn't want their advertising played during the Rush Limbaugh show. While you're ranting don't forget to acknowledge that 90%+ of political talk radio is hosted by mostly far-right hosts.

New title:

LEFT-WING OPINION IS BANNED IN THE TALK RADIO MARKET BY RIGHT-WING MEDIA CORPORATIONS WHO CONTROL IT
Okay, let me re-quote the relevant point I was making, which you have missed:
Quote:
"The advertisers have also requested to be excluded from other right-wing hosts including Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity."
Source: thinkprogress.org...

What makes you think the ban is now lifted? Or are you saying this is a trash source and their information is wrong?



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Sounds like a real Marxist/Corporatist agenda !!!




posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
Yes. Going by the headline.
Right?



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

"The advertisers have also requested to be excluded from other right-wing hosts including Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity."



What makes you think the ban is now lifted?


Request = ban
?



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Nonsense
Right wing radio is the norm. saying they dont want to advertise on a very specific few names because of them being buttholes to the highest order is not a conspiracy..

They dont want their product associated with literal sewage. People like Rush Limbaugh and friends have done more to keep away people from conservative ideas than anything the left could ever dream up.

Right wing ideas and ideals are fine, and plenty of talk radio and television has plenty of responsible, semi-coherent people...
And then you got those ayeholes...



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: wayforward

"The advertisers have also requested to be excluded from other right-wing hosts including Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity."



What makes you think the ban is now lifted?


Request = ban?


Yes. It's like I've got an offer you can't refuse.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler
So, advertisers who target the Super Bowl are out of line? They have no right to choose their demographic target?

That seems un'merican.


(Side note: I got a kick out of Rush hawking various snake oils. Back when I could listen to him at all.)
edit on 9/24/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: schuyler
So, advertisers who target the Super Bowl are out of line? They have no right to choose their demographic target?


They absolutely do, no question. I believe the Super Bowl ads are the most expensive. The issue, I thought, was advertisers boycotting shows because of pressure from one group or another that does not like the show. Their "protest" is to heckle the advertiser until it withdraws advertising from the target show. This is a tactic more often used by the left, but I'm sure of we dig deep enough we can find someone on the right doing the very same thing.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

The issue, I thought, was advertisers boycotting shows because of pressure from one group or another that does not like the show.
Since when were boycotts an issue?
When they are against your position?



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: wayforward

What makes you think the ban is now lifted? Or are you saying this is a trash source and their information is wrong?


No, what they are saying is that there is no ban. The corporations are just choosing to not have their ads advertised during those shows. Which is totally within their right to do. You get to choose which slots to have your ads in because they are sponsoring those shows.

Banning implies that they are being prevented from sponsoring certain shows. That's not the case. They are just choosing to sponsor other shows that suit their target audience.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Alternate title: Salty right winger wants to ban free speech and freedom of choice



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: wayforward

"The advertisers have also requested to be excluded from other right-wing hosts including Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity."



What makes you think the ban is now lifted?


Request = ban
?

No. Request = Boycott. It's a request because its not always easy when doing a national campaign to control exactly which shows get what ads. I'm at a loss to see how the headline is misleading when it describes *exactly* what was reported by the source. If you to say the source is wrong, then okay going by the headline. But the headline is exactly matching what the source reports. One company cannot "demand" something from another, so it has to be a request. I'm not sure where you are going with that by focusing on the fact it was a request. Contracts cannot always be modified in the middle of the service.
edit on 24-9-2016 by wayforward because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward
Then why do you call it a ban?



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Why call it a ban? Well, its a shorter word than boycott for the title. These companies are trying to censor right-wing authors only. Is there reason for me to think otherwise? I'm not sure how its acceptable to people for large corporations to be in unifying support of the left-wing while working against the right.

PS - I edited the title. Its irrelevant what you call it. Its big corporations that canceled ads on right-wing media but not the left.
edit on 24-9-2016 by wayforward because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward




These companies are trying to censor right-wing authors only.

No.
They are saying that they do not want to be associated with those authors.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: wayforward




These companies are trying to censor right-wing authors only.

No.
They are saying that they do not want to be associated with those authors.
They canceled right-wing ads on all the biggest names in the right wing. They did no such thing on the left-wing. How would this be anything but large corporations trying to push the public left?



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

How would this be anything but large corporations trying to push the public left?
How is it a ban?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join